Ouya Android Console Blows Past Kickstarter Goal 270
mikejuk writes with a winner for quickest follow-up in a while as the Ouya console managed to raise over $2 million in a mere eight hours. From the article: "On the surface it all sounds like a really good idea. The OUYA games console is planned to be an open competitor to the likes of Xbox and PS3. It seems so good that it has been crowd funded to the tune of $1 million — but why exactly is it needed? There must be a good reason — after all the wisdom of crowds is never wrong. The simple answer seems to be freedom. The company claims that you can do what you want to the machine. A CyanogenMod port would allow you to do what you like to the OS and it wouldn't void your warranty. You can hack the hardware or software. However, it is important to note that this isn't open hardware. ... In the same way the software seems to be open and yet controlled. ... The Kickstarter page says 'When we say, "open" we mean it. We've made many decisions based on this philosophy:..' But it isn't Open Source. And yet it is so much better than the alternative. Perhaps this is a sign of just how desperate we all are to get away from the control of the big console manufacturers, that we will fund anything that sounds even slightly reasonable. The walled gardens of Apple, Sony and Microsoft no longer seem the warm and welcoming places they once did (if they ever did)"
Issues not raised on yesterday's post; the console will require a significant number of binary blobs just to function, and it's really unclear whether or not it will actually be DRM free. Anyone remember Indrema?
Holy funding, splatman! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's got to be a serious contender for the record of fastest funded project on Kickstarter in the category of nearly a million dollars... But anyway, I hope this means we'll get to see what they come up with - a 99 dollar console is just about in the range of 'sure, I'll bite - see what it's like' in terms of risk to the consumer.
Cool tech... but... (Score:5, Insightful)
>after all the wisdom of crowds is never wrong
Really? Or was that sarcasm?
Here are the problems I foresee:
1) They're either selling the hardware at cost or taking a loss at $99. Big console manufacturers make it back on $60 games. It will be really tough to make it off 30% of 99c games.
2) Storage, 8 GB(minus OS space) is really low, and you don't want to be downloading from the cloud all the time. XBox gets away with a 4GB model because it has a DVD drive. Throw in a SD card slot atleast or a cheap SSD.
3) Hardware: The hardware seems woefully inadequate. Tegra 3 is okay for now but in 2013 when they actually launch? Also, it's not a good thing to upgrade hardware even every year because that will fragment the games, so that hardware at launch is a very important baseline.
4) And the last big thing: PATENTS. The big players and patent trolls will be all over this company by the time it even sees minimal success. With the controller looking very similar to the existing ones, expect a huge patent attack.
Anyway, nice to see an underdog coming up in the console games, but it's hard to understand why Google can't make something like this. They already have Google TV and they release something like the Nexus Q at $299?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Suckers. (Score:5, Insightful)
$2 million all for the price of a flashy presentation. Let me say this again, they just made $2 million in DONATIONS with 0 requirements to actually bring this device to market. Show of hands, how many people remember the Phantom console?
And people wonder where their money goes and why they are in so much debt...
I agree that the console market needs to have more open source contenders, but guess what, they HAVE contenders! There are plenty of open source / open hardware solutions that you can even build yourself! These solutions come with a variety of software options including Ubuntu and Android. Heck there are even a few portable handheld open consoles available. The difference is that these are actual devices for sale and not a list of shiny specs with no solid strategy for being profitable, especially at the $99 price point they mention.
One of these days I need to make a flashy shiny kickstarter presentation with a lot of loaded promises just so that I can cash out and retire early...
Why did they need Kickstarter? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is sort of a recurring theme in a lot of Kickstarter projects -- why did this particular project need to go to Kickstarter?
If you look at their pitch video, clearly no expense was spared getting the Ouya to its current point. Fancy office space, dozens of designers/developers, Macs for everyone, etc. Somebody has pumped serious cash into this venture. So why do they have to beg common people for a mere million bucks to get this thing off the ground? Were they just going to give up if they didn't get the money? Somehow I doubt that.
I've never seen anyone raise that particular question about this project. They obviously have some deep-pocketed investors, so why do they have to beg for money from a bunch of regular Joes who will certainly feel the financial impact if this thing never comes to fruition?
Re:Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
I posted as AC by mistake... but yes I am an independent game developer (not hard to find these days with mobile devices).
And I am not trolling or stupid... I just need to Google my games to know they are available for free and being copied. I have data from my transactions and number of what countries buy or download my games. I can tell that although Americans buy a lot but this is not true for other countries. For instance, one of my games has sold almost less copies than there are download sites with cracked versions of it. The fact some people don't do it don't mean it won't be the main attractive for most people (specially outside us)
Re:Holy funding, splatman! (Score:3, Insightful)
All they need is some developers who know to focus on the FUN factor of games. I'm tired of the industry rating games on graphics and realism. I want games that are fun, with a high replayability factor. I have enough realism from 8-5. I don't need to see individual hairs on the back of my character's neck stand up when he gets shot in the face.
Why shouldn't we try for both?
Re:Piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
So what?
I mean that seriously, you are not losing money, it is no different than if someone did not buy the game. I know that sounds harsh, but the reality is every minute you spend worrying about people like that is one less you can spend getting actual customers. To an indie dev, I would suggest making a version to post on such websites. Change some models/sprites/backgrounds to pirates or zombies or something, and leave out the ending. This way it will at least be harder for people to find the pirated full version and you will get free advertising.
Spend more time making it worth me buying and less time worrying about what broke folks do. Some people will never give you their money, don't worry about what you can't change. Worry about getting those of us who might give you money to actually do so.
Please also tell me what game it is so I can go check it out.
Re:Holy funding, splatman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because graphics cost a lot of money, and effort there would be better off on gameplay or the next title. or on a cheaper game-I'd rather have it coat half as much and have snes era graphics.
Add for realism- for some games, it's good. For most, out actively detracts from fun gameplay. Concentrate on it only if it's a key concept, otherwise ignore it
Re:Holy funding, splatman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Add for realism- for some games, it's good. For most, out actively detracts from fun gameplay. Concentrate on it only if it's a key concept, otherwise ignore it
As a long time gamer I wholeheartedly agree. While we've seen an increase in graphics quality over time, we've seen very little movement in terms of innovative gameplay/controls/storylines/etc. Lately, it's only the indie games that I've seen that have implemented really original ideas. I love the idea of a console like this coming to market, it will give the big guys a run for their money.
Re:Holy funding, splatman! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your argument is that the Wii is actually a pretty good console - it's just saddled with crappy games because that's all that makes it past Nintendo's vetting process. Cheap and sleezy ports and titles that are just 'phoned in' make up a large bulk of the console's 'shovelware'. If Nintendo didn't require you to be an A tier developer with blockbuster games already in your stable - then they'd have some room for innovative products on the platform. As it is - they have geared their developer's licensing to poach developers from other consoles.
Given the Android platform, this could really open the world of console game development to the independents - those who could never convince Nintendo or Sony to even sell them a development kit - or pay for Microsoft XBOX's QA for deployment on XBOX Live. I've seen some really impressive indie games out there - and this could be their shot at getting in on a console that hasn't already 'cherry-picked' their developer base.
Of course, there is also a lot of $hit indie games as well - but that's kind of to be expected with no vetting process of any kind. Perhaps as the market matures, places like Metacritic and game magazines will review and rate indie titles on such systems as this more frequently - and it will not be such a crap-shoot.
Re:Scam-like points of note (Score:2, Insightful)
All of your points are completely sensible and on the money. But if we're being kind to them, you can justify some of them:
- Every game must have free-to-play content: they're basically demanding that all games must come with a demo, or follow the old Shareware model. Not that unreasonable.
- Android- it's only a buzzword if they're not using it. Android is a fairly sensible choice for what they're setting out to do, so it's not that weird that they've picked it.
- "Rooting"- they're just using the lingo. It seems what they really mean is "we'll support users being able to get root privileges on their device, in a Linux sense". Which is fair enough.
- $99 price point- there are already Android smartphones with or near a $100 price tag. A lot of the expense in a smartphone can be given over to the screen, the battery, the general miniaturization. If they're happy with a bulky box which runs of the mains (which they are), then $99 isn't completely insane (although it's still pretty unbelievable).
Much else (unrelated screenshots, appeal to "fringe culture", general buzzword frenzy) can be put down to an over excitable marketing team. Which is something many of us are familiar with...
Re:Holy funding, splatman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we'd like to be able to play the games without waiting 10 years for the development to finish. If there are engineering trade-offs to be made in game dev, please opt for "fun" over "realistic", Devs.
Re:Holy funding, splatman! (Score:4, Insightful)
...and the fact that working with Nintendo's console development group is such a nightmare that even seasoned development houses don't put the manpower into creating stuff for them BECAUSE they are so difficult to work with. They lost a ton of franchises because of it - Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, and a ton more won't even -ever- consider it because of the tales they've heard about it.
That works against you getting premium titles for your console when you cull your developers before they even get out of the starting gate. The ones that are left don't sink the manpower into flagship games that could get killed at any point by Nintendo to favor their own titles, release schedules, or even if they just don't like your game concept as it's evolving. Petty shit kills good products, and Nintendo has been stabbing a lot of people in the industry in the back over the years - it's just taken a while to catch up with them.