Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android DRM Piracy Games

Why We Should Remain Skeptical of the Ouya Android Console 184

Posted by Soulskill
from the guilty-until-proven-awesome dept.
An anonymous reader writes "We recently talked about the 'Ouya' console — a conceptual Android-based gaming device that's had a massively successful Kickstarter campaign. While most people are excited about such a non-traditional console, editorials at 1Up and Eurogamer have expressed some more realistic skepticism about the claims being made and the company's ability to meet those claims. Quoting: 'Even if we set aside the issue of install base, one of Ouya's selling points could make developers wary of investing in it. Through the pitch video and on the Kickstarter page, Ouya emphasizes the ability to root the system and hack it without fear of voiding the warranty. With a standard USB port and Bluetooth support, it will be possible to use controllers and peripherals with it other than the one it comes with. What this also opens the door for is piracy and emulation. No doubt a chunk of the audience interested in Ouya are those intrigued by the idea of having a box that hooks up to a TV and can run Super Nintendo or Genesis emulators. Others will look at the system's open nature as an invitation to play its games for free; if it's as open as advertised, it should not be difficult to obtain and run illegally downloaded copies of Ouya games.' Ouya CEO Julia Uhrman has responded to the skepticism, saying, 'Ouya will be just as secure as any other Android-powered device. In fact, because all the paid content will require authentication with Ouya's servers, we have an added layer of security. Hacking and openness are about getting what you want to do with the hardware. Rooting the device won't give you any more access to the software.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why We Should Remain Skeptical of the Ouya Android Console

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I realise that businessmen have had it easy since the '80s, but at least there was the vague principle that people invest their money in return for some proprietary interest in the ongoing concern. Kickstarter appears to be the epitome of fawning obsequience to the owning classes, where people contribute money in return for a single trinket.

    • by Theophany (2519296) on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @03:01AM (#40670471)
      Whilst your comment seems to be somewhat inflammatory, I do find myself agreeing to a certain degree. It's like venture capitalism without the capitalism. That being said given the global backlash against capitalism, Kickstarter's success doesn't surprise me.
      • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @04:15AM (#40670841) Journal

        It's like venture capitalism without the capitalism.

        It's not hard to understand. It's like Free Software and attempts to pidgeonhole it along very rigid lines will always fail simply because it serves multiple purposes.

        I helped fund a film which is now being made. From my point of view it's just distributed patronage.

        • I don't have any moral or otherwise objections to Kickstarter, I think it is helping a lot of great work get off the ground and as long as people bear in mind 'caveat emptor' before parting with their hard-earned, hopefully many more good things will come from it in time.
      • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @07:18AM (#40672207) Homepage Journal

        given the global backlash against capitalism

        It's not like capitalism didn't throw the first blow.

        It's like curdled milk that people are just starting to notice has gone bad, the same way they noticed Communism did some time ago.

        Maybe, there is no socioeconomic system that human cupidity cannot spoil.

    • by Riceballsan (816702) on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @03:57AM (#40670765)
      Well I would say the plus of kickstarter is it fills a need that wasn't being met. The companies with the money, have stopped listening to the fans that buy their products. The same crap has been rehashed 500 times because people with money, will not invest money until after they have seen evidence that the fans will buy that product. The end result came the new methods of selling. Including the method games such as minecraft and project zomboid used by selling the very rough alpha of the game with the promise of future updates, and kickstarters. The end result is that games that otherwise had no way of coming into being have been funded and several released, as the fans have more or less purchased the games in advance to fund the development. While I do agree it shifts the burden of risk onto the fans at least it is shifting the risks onto fans that want to take that risk. Compare that to the banks etc... who gamble with our money whether we want them to or not.
    • by jurgen (14843) on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @05:50AM (#40671493)

      Kickstarter is not meant to replace venture capitalism... it is an alternative to venture capital for types of projects which wouldn't be attractive to capitalist investors, such as art projects, or very small scale manufacturing, or as in this case, projects that venture capitalists might consider unrealistic but in which enthusiasts might have enough faith. Those who contribute don't do it for a "trinket"... we do it either because we simply want to see the project succeed, or because we want the product enough to pay for it in advance and take the chance that it'll never materialize.

      Kickstarter is filling a needed niche... Iit's a large niche, and it seems to be working. And it it works for enough types of things, it'll start inspiring venture investors to go after some of the same markets, which will mean that it's "working" in yet another sense for society.

      So I think Kickstart is a brilliant idea. We'll have to wait a bit longer to see if history will vindicate it, but early indications from recent successes are that it may be a real game changer.

    • by f3rret (1776822)

      I realise that businessmen have had it easy since the '80s, but at least there was the vague principle that people invest their money in return for some proprietary interest in the ongoing concern. Kickstarter appears to be the epitome of fawning obsequience to the owning classes, where people contribute money in return for a single trinket.

      Pretty much, yeah.

    • by iamhassi (659463) on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @06:45AM (#40671911) Journal
      as it has been said on here before many Kickstarter projects are a scam [slashdot.org]

      Zioneyez used Kickstarter to steal $350,000 and delivered nothing [dailydot.com]

      When people complained, Kickstarter said "no refunds" [engadget.com]

      If it sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true. Problem is word is not getting out about all the scams on Kickstarter. All we hear are the successes, so people think everything on Kickstarter is legitimate when it's not, there are plenty of scams on Kickstarter.

      How many stories did Slashdot run on ZionEyez? Answer: One, [slashdot.org] and even then the story was "Has this failed?" rather than "Kickstarter project stole $350,000"

      How many stories did Slashdot run on Disapora? Answer: At least seven, [slashdot.org] even though Diaspora never met it's Summer 2010 deadline and many would argue it never achieved what was promised despite receiving $190,000 more than their goal [kickstarter.com]

      Is everything on Kickstarter a scam? Of course not, but Kickstarter promises nothing on any project, they just give the information. In that regard it's a lot like Craigslist. Craigslist doesn't guarantee the guy you hired for roofing is going to do a good job. Difference is Kickstarter is presenting the information like it's legitimate, and I think that's where the problem is, why people are offering millions of dollars on projects that are obvious scams, because they believe Kickstarter has somehow verified these people when they're really no different than the guy offering to wash your windshield for a buck.
      • by iamhassi (659463)
        I will say this might be the project that breaks Kickstarter.

        Like someone posted it will be impossible for them to offer the specs they claim they can offer. [slashdot.org]

        When the project fails maybe people will finally start being cautious with Kickstarter projects and stop giving them so much money.

        My biggest fear though is they will rip out all the specs, dumb it down to 2008 levels like a Tegra 1 [wikipedia.org], and release it saying "LOOK WE MET OUR GOAL!" and no one will actually point out that they lied and Kickstarter
        • by LingNoi (1066278)

          I funded the kickstarter and I see it more of a donation that anything else. I have wanted something like this to happen for a long time and I paid money for a chance for it to be a success. I think a lot of the people that are funding this feel the same way.

          If it doesn't work out then at least I tried rather then bitch on reddit or slashdot about how nothing like this ever comes along.

      • This really isn't news. Well, maybe to the naive.

        Some developers over promise. Other developers have no money skills. Even other developers don't know what they are doing. Failure is a part of life. And sure, there are scammers just like there are scammers everywhere. Hell, some scammers make big money (see Best Buy).

        When I back a project, I'm backing it's potential. I'm backing a product that I would like to see in the world. I ask for nothing and expect nothing. If the product makes it to market,

    • by Chris Burke (6130)

      Yeah, it was so much better when the people could only contribute their money in return for a trinket that had first been vetted and approved by the owning class.

      Heaven forbid we take one step closer to the capitalist ideal that if there's public demand for something then that something will be produced to fill that demand. What we really meant was that something will be produced if and only if it is approved by the Gatekeepers of Capitalism.

  • So, always on DRM? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @02:51AM (#40670427)

    "all the paid content will require authentication with Ouya's servers"

    So it'll have Ubi-style always-on DRM. Nice.

    I was kind of interested in this project, but upon reflection I'm getting increasingly more sceptical. Too many spurious claims, not enough hard detail. I'll see how (if) it pans out, but I'm glad I'm not a backer.

    • by djsmiley (752149)

      Someone mod this up.

      Why they think that it needs to constantly authorize the software online is beyond me. Microsoft and Sony quite happily let you download a game on your PS3 and never go online again (most games, not _all_ on the ps3 at least). If its not as easy as this it's already failing in this respect....

      Of course the people who are likely to buy it already understand this and know how to get around these issues (Yup, piracy).

      • The simple answer is that all of the games will be free to play, at least in part. It kinda makes the piracy scare claims stand out as the obvious FUD they are, even if we don't like the idea of always-on DRM. Whoever keeps saying that the Ouya will lead to high piracy rates for games specifically targeting the thing must be very silly!
        • This. They are clearly making these claims to attract big commercial developers. This is a mistake as those developers will not come. They should be trying to attract indy developers with free to play content. For developers like this open, hackable systems are great, and the chance to move into the console market in a way that supports digital distribution direct to the consumer without the need for proprietary disc formats is very attractive. I would suggest that they collaborate with the Unity3d people,
          • They are clearly making these claims to attract big commercial developers. This is a mistake as those developers will not come. They should be trying to attract indy developers with free to play content.

            I thought they were targeting the major labels because most end users are thought to give neither a damn [slashdot.org] nor a fuck [slashdot.org] about indie games. If people like CronoCloud are to be believed, end users want games developed by people who have paid their dues to the video gaming establishment by moving to Austin, Boston, or Seattle and working on someone else's project.

          • by tlhIngan (30335)

            This. They are clearly making these claims to attract big commercial developers. This is a mistake as those developers will not come. They should be trying to attract indy developers with free to play content. For developers like this open, hackable systems are great, and the chance to move into the console market in a way that supports digital distribution direct to the consumer without the need for proprietary disc formats is very attractive. I would suggest that they collaborate with the Unity3d people,

            • Angry birds is just a rip off of a very old concept, popularity != quality.
              Now that that is out of the way, if you simply take all indie games in an epic sized game folder and click on random binaries until you find something you like then your comments about signal to noise ratio are spot on. But that is not how I find games. The way many people find games is also plagued by this problem, namely clicking on advertisements that look like something they might like, on services like the ones you mention. I
      • by GuB-42 (2483988) on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @04:41AM (#40670993)

        The key here is "all the paid content". And I believe it actually means "all the paid content purchased on the official Ouya store". If the device is rootable, nothing prevent developers from making an alternate store that doesn't require authentication.

        I think they will use the same strategy as the android market. There is a licensing API but it is up to the developer to chose how to use it : it can be never, once, or every time the app is started, it also support a (configurable) grace period in case you are not always online.

  • Rewards (Score:3, Insightful)

    by byennie (1126011) on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @03:02AM (#40670483)

    I'd be worried they completely overextended on the Kickstarter rewards. They may have raised $5M so far, but they also owe:

    * About 8% of that to Kickstarter & Amazon (= $400,000)
    * 35,000 consoles and controllers to their backers

    Manufacturing and fulfillment on 35,000 consoles is going to take an awfully large bite out of their (so far) $4.6M net from Kickstarter.

    • by djsmiley (752149)

      If each one cost $100 to make (doubtful) then they'd have a nice chunk of change left over for themselves ($1.1mil if my calculations are correct). Of course there's other issues, taxes etc..... but I think it could still be quite successful?

    • Re:Rewards (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hentes (2461350) on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @03:58AM (#40670773)

      The big cost in hardware is development, not manufacturing.

    • by Mithent (2515236)
      This is a valid point, yep. Raising money for, say, developing a game through Kickstarter is fine, because you're just paying for the developers' time in advance rather than retrospectively, and that's what most of the money goes on. But if you're selling something on Kickstarter that has actual unit costs, you'd better be making sure that the price is high enough to cover all your overheads after you take that into account, and $99 is not a lot to be selling this device for considering that they also need
      • The controller apparently incorporates a touchpad into the service to make it easier to play games designed for touchscreens. They are offering extra controllers for $30. That's a blue tooth controller with integrated touchpad for $30. It's this that screams Phantom to me. A fairly generic BT controller alone already costs around thirty bucks. How can they hope to sell their fancy version for the same amount?

        In a perfect world, they pull it off, create a minor storm in the gaming world and fulfil everyon
    • If they completely overextended, then they shouldn't have bumped up the limits.

      The project started out with a limited number of rewards and they have bumped those up a few times.

      It's entirely likely that's part of the marketing spiel (they have pretty much admitted that they're using KickStarter in part for that purpose).

      Which in turn leads to the whole "they're seeking funding outside of KickStarter as well" stuff.

      Personally I think it can be done - but don't see the point. But if it ends up a very popula

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @03:05AM (#40670495)

    I'm an electronics designer and the first thing that jumps out at me is that they want to use a Tegra 3 processor. From having detailed conversations with another SoC manufacturer in the same class I'm certain there is no chance in hell they will be able to purchase that processor with only, say, 50k consoles being produced (35k Kickstarter backers at the time of writing).

    When we tried it the SoC manufacturer was willing to deal with us at a level of 1 million units and stated they might _consider_ 500k units/pa if we could guarantee a ramp-up.

    So this sounds like a total load of shit based on that single glaring fact.

    • by Svartalf (2997)

      Depends on the story with the vendor in question. YOU can't get access to 50k units from them- but apparently RaspberryPI and a few other projects seem to be managing those sorts of quantities of parts with Broadcom and TI all the same.

      As an actual systems designer (Note: I'm posting as MYSELF and not an anon coward...), I'd say it's "tough" to pull off- but I've seen some "tough" things happen like the Pandora Handheld, RaspberryPI, BeagleBoard, BeagleBone, PandaBoard...and a lot more. That's not to say

  • Yeah, I was interested in it mostly as an emulation machine. Anything wrong about that?

    • Yeah, I was interested in it mostly as an emulation machine. Anything wrong about that?

      Nothing wrong with your interest, but perception as "an emulation machine" will hurt the console's chance of success. For one thing, AAA video game publishers probably don't want to publish on the same platform that's known to be widely sold for the express purpose of emulating infringing copies of their own game. Then the AAA video game publishers might try suing the manufacturer for contributory infringement, claiming that the device's noninfringing use is not substantial and therefore does not qualify fo

      • AAA publishers don't want to publish on any platform that comes from outside the status quo. If soeone thinks it's the emulation that's going to keep the likes of EA away from this thing, they've not been paying attention.

        Expecting AAA games on the Ouya is delusional, at best. And if the games are going to be running on the Zynga model with Diablo III DRM... well, I guess there's still something to be said for a $99 box for playing video off an external hard drive. Not much, but something.

  • Piracy... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bert64 (520050) <bert@slaSLACKWAR ... com minus distro> on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @04:01AM (#40670779) Homepage

    It's already trivially easy to pirate games on all the other gaming platforms... And most of them are also capable of running emulators.

    What's really needed however, is a modern day equivalent of the Amiga. A system with a good selection of games, the insert and boot simplicity of a console, and a proper computer underpinning the system that allows people to learn more should they wish to do so. Think about it like this:

    Parents don't want to buy their kids a games console because it's not very educational, all it does is play games.
    Kids may not be terribly interested in learning how a computer works to start with, but if the facility is there then curiosity will often get the better of them.
    Most importantly, the system needs to encourage people to learn about it, and needs to have a simple procedure to return it to a working state regardless of how much you've messed with it.

    As for piracy, all the various anti piracy measures do is limit casual piracy, that is kids sharing copies of games with friends, or buying a single copy of a game to play at a lan party... These schemes inevitably get cracked anyway, and instead of buying one copy to share those kids will simply obtain a pirate copy to start with.

    • by tepples (727027)

      all the various anti piracy measures do is limit casual piracy, that is kids [...] buying a single copy of a game to play at a lan party

      And now you know why PC games tend not to support split or otherwise shared screen multiplayer in the living room: selling four copies is more lucrative for the publisher [cracked.com].

      • No, it's because the "PC connected to the tv" is a sufficiently uncommon use case as to be omitted from consideration. Even games that let you play multiple copies on LAN games (the upcoming Torchlight 2, for example) doesn't use split screen, even though they're not requiring you to buy 4 copies. It's because the majority of PC gamers want and expect it that way.

        • by tepples (727027)
          Then why is "desktop PC with a 21 inch or bigger monitor" likewise an ignorable use case? That's at least as big as the bedroom TVs on which college students used to play split-screen GoldenEye 007 for Nintendo 64. Is it uncommon simply because it was already uncommon prior to the HDTV market shift making larger desktop PC monitors commonplace?
          • Because those monitors are usually on desks, not on a couch where 2-4 people can sit comfortably and play. There's more variables to consider other than hardware.

            • Because those monitors are usually on desks

              And bedroom TVs tended to be on dressers. All you really need to play 2-player shared-screen games on a PC are a second chair and a couple gamepads, yet conventional wisdom is that even that is too much of a hurdle.

              • Working under the assumptions that the game is best played with a gamepad, that the desk is positioned in such a way that the two chairs can both positioned for viewing the screen, and that there's enough room behind the desk.

                None of these, among other things, are givens. Combined with the fact that very few customers are clamoring for split-screening on PC games, all supports my statement that it's not just about the hardware, no matter what size the screen.

                • by tepples (727027)
                  So would people instead be comfortable playing a cooperative platformer or a fighting game on two PCs?
                  • Obviously, they are. Or on consoles where, SF IV excepted, both of those genres seem to live.

                    • So once a startup company has developed a fighting game that works on a PC, how should the startup company approach established publishers so that the game can be ported to a platform where it has a chance of actually selling?
          • Then why is "desktop PC with a 21 inch or bigger monitor" likewise an ignorable use case?

            Tepples, meet reality. Many people DON'T have large computer monitors and if they did, the location of the computer might not be conducive to same screen multi, even if they wanted to play those sort of game son the PC, which they don't.

            That's at least as big as the bedroom TVs on which college students used to play split-screen GoldenEye 007 for Nintendo 64.

            Yeah, and everyone back then wished that networked multi was available for the consoles. That's one of the things PC gamers bashed console gamers with:

            "Ha ha, you all are stupid to play Goldeneye with a tiny little corner of a screen where you can see where each other are.

            • "Ha ha, you all are stupid to play Goldeneye with a tiny little corner of a screen where you can see where each other are....real men play networked so you have your OWN screen"

              Then I'll admit GoldenEye was a bad example. I should have mentioned a fighting game instead; those share the screen without splitting it.

              • I should have mentioned a fighting game instead; those share the screen without splitting it.

                Doesn't matter. Online multi is better for adults because of the reasons I listed above, and a few more besides.

                Suppose a game has only local mutliplayer. I'm limited to playing with:

                1. people who like that game
                2. who want to play that game
                3. whom I know and live reasonably nearby
                4. that can play at the same time I want to.

                But online multi, doesn't have those limits.

                I used to play the PSone version of Diablo co-op same-screen with a friend, we later jumped to some PS2 diablo clones. The guy didn't have h

                • by Bert64 (520050)

                  There shouldn't be any arbitrary limits...
                  Take a game like quake, it can do local multiplayer, it can do online, it can use third party tools like gamespy for finding servers to play on, you can host an (albeit small) server on the same system your playing the game on or you can run a dedicated server (preferably somewhere with fast connectivity)...

                  If you only have online multiplayer, especially one where you require a centralised server controlled by the publisher your limited to:

                  1, people who like that ga

                  • by tepples (727027)

                    3, playing with a fast low latency connection (which still aren't available everywhere, and are sometimes prohibitively expensive).

                    CronoCloud has a term for people who don't live in and can't move to the service area of cable or DSL: "edge case not worth serving".

                    4, that want to play at the same time you want to
                    5, that are able to play at the same time as you (network congestion, peak time usage charges etc)

                    These two don't vary among the shared-screen, LAN, and online cases.

                    6, playing against players who are latency-wise fairly close to you, or suffering slow/unfair gameplay.

                    GGPO [ggpo.net] apparently allows even intercontinental matches because all actions are timestamped and queued for a few frames before being acted on, and if games desync, the game is instantly re-simulated in fast forward from the last agreed state using all the timestamped actions.

                    there is no reason not to implement lan play

                    This leads to discussion of relative

                    • by Altrag (195300)

                      4, that want to play at the same time you want to
                      5, that are able to play at the same time as you (network congestion, peak time usage charges etc)

                      These two don't vary among the shared-screen, LAN, and online cases

                      It differs significantly: LAN you have a pool of maybe a few friends. Online you have a pool of hundreds or thousands of potential players. I can load up an online game at any time of day or night and find someone to play with/against. It might not be as fun as playing with a friend directly, but its almost always available.

                      there is no reason not to implement lan play

                      (OK I'm responding to the GP here, but I don't feel like double-posting:P.) There's a huge reason to not implement LAN play -- it requires that you distribute the server code. Depe

                    • I can load up an online game at any time of day or night and find someone to play with/against.

                      Provided that it's a game that allows play with strangers. A few games for Nintendo DS and Wii require a mutual out-of-band key exchange just to start a game. In any case, they disallow communication with strangers, except in a few limited cases that involve human curators employed by Nintendo (I can think of Everybody Votes Channel, Check Mii Out Channel, and WarioWare DIY theme contests).

  • The digital hats you will be buying are on their servers not your console. It should be possible to make this 100% secure. Banks don't mind you running Linux on a toaster to connect to your account and they have a lot more to lose.
    Saying that they are still 100-1000 fold away of being able to get a Tegra3 console out the door. They should have proved the market by sticking a badge on a cheep Chinese ARM.

    • Pssh, digital hats are for the Steam servers for the rumored Steam box, not Ouya.

      (For the record, Valve launched a Linux blog [valvesoftware.com] yesterday, don't think /. mentioned that anywhere)

  • And it's a pretty obvious necessity. The lockdown of hardware and the business model for selling software are parts of the same problem. You can't change one without changing the other as well. Open games require open hardware, and vice versa.

  • These skeptics can't string two original thoughts together: fuss-potting on the DRM aspect, which is clearly not the main focus of this new console!

    Time to wake up, The Humble Bundle statistics [humblebundle.com] prove that DRM-free games are indeed wanted.

    Similarly, and open gaming platform is much needed. The corporates are just afraid of losing their fatty grips.

    • The Humble Bundle statistics prove that DRM-free games are indeed wanted.

      The Humble Bundles are the exception to the rule; almost no indie game makes it even that far because if CronoCloud is to be believed, people give neither a damn [slashdot.org] nor a fuck [slashdot.org] about indie games. I seem to remember that a lot of the games in Humble Bundles are only popular because their developers are known for having worked for the establishment. And even among the exceptions, none of the Humble Bundles has yet sold a million copies. Compare to the million-selling mark used for "Player's Choice" or "Greatest H

    • Humble Bundle proves that when you have massive promotion and media attention you can sell some widgets. It does exactly zero to validate indie gaming as a sustainable ecosystem.

    • by westlake (615356)

      Time to wake up, The Humble Bundle statistics [humblebundle.com] prove that DRM-free games are indeed wanted.

      The Humble Bundle (eight games in Bundle V) can expect to see $8 from the Windows gamer and $12 from the Linux gamer --- for games which have already had broad exposure and sales on the Windows platform.

      The Indie game with a solid reputation (Amnesia, Limbo, Machinarium) sold for five percent of their retail price.

  • How awful. You buy this hardware. Then you can control what runs on it?
    Seriously?

    Someone should go shoot someone else. It's against everything that's right
    to be able to run whatever you want on your own hardware. That you paid for.
    That you purchased. That you own. That you should be able to do whatever
    you damn well please.

    RMS said it best.

    E

  • If this device isn't really all that then why the effort to create "anti-hype"? If it can't deliver on it's promises, then just let it die quietly. There is really no need to go out of your way to FUD the thing.

    Really. Why bother?

    Are you some pathetic loser with no life that has to troll some niche product like a bully pulling the wings off flies or are you trying for some perverse Streisand Effect?

  • Ouya will be just as secure as any other Android-powered device. In fact, because all the paid content will require authentication with Ouya's servers, we have an added layer of security. Hacking and openness are about getting what you want to do with the hardware. Rooting the device won't give you any more access to the software.

    Since this company doesn't understand the meaning of rooting, or openness, they are going to be very disappointed.

    Also, it makes me think you'll need to buy the apps that work thru Ouya, via Ouya, for them to authenticate it. So I'm guessing if you already own 3 versions of Angry Birds, you'll need to buy another to play it on the Ouya.

    Anyways, when you make an item like this, doing a loss on hardware sales is stupid. You make it cheap enough that you can either break even, or make a small profit on th

  • by sgtrock (191182) on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @10:51AM (#40674515)

    Granted, these guys [openpandora.org] didn't have Kickstarter available when they first began work on this project. Granted, development of each release has been agonizingly slow. But if you're looking for a small, open console that plays a bunch of games, why buy Ouya when this is out there? Seriously. If these guys ever get serious dough rolling in, the price on these would drop through the floor now that all the sunk costs have been paid for. I want one. Now. It's definitely high on my list to buy once we get our debt paid down.

    • It took them too long to come to market and they screwed up their sourcing. By the time you could buy one with an expectation of getting it within 6 months, the price was up to $500 (from $350, which was already WAY too high for what you got) and the age of the smartphone had begun. For half the price, you could get a crappy android phone with more power and a wider range of capabilities. Today, you can get a goddamn iPad for the same price or less.

      A textbook case of "too little, too late." The OpenPandora'

    • by kamapuaa (555446)

      Two totally different things, there's no comparison. Open Pandora is $500 and portable. Nobody would ever buy one for home use, because you'd be better off buying a cheaper but more powerful netbook or desktop.

      Whereas the Ouya is purely for home use, and cheap.

  • Wrong Premise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Belial6 (794905) on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @10:56AM (#40674571)
    This article starts with completely the wrong premise. Platforms don't become popular because of DRM. DRM gets put on popular platforms because there is nothing the purchaser can do about it other than do without. The idea that EA would choose not to earn a million dollars on non-DRMed software because they could have gotten 2 million if DRM was in place is ridiculous.

    I point to http://www.gog.com./ [www.gog.com] If an inexpensive console had just that DRM free library of games, it would be a viable platform. There is no question that DRM free software can make money.
  • That is why the IBM PC was such a failure and Microsoft never made any money writing software for the PC platform.
  • A free-of-charge SDK is not "open." Sorry. And please stop designing systems with DRM. Why are you morons so willing to design defects into your software? Hell, you're targeting indy developers, not billion dollar game studios. Please, feel free to go fuck yourself with your DRM. If I can't buy something without DRM attached to it, I always pirate it instead since then I actually have control. If I ever purchased an Ouya, I would absolutely pirate every single game so that I can play them on my PC an
  • Let's just replace "Ouya" by "PCs"...

    With a standard USB port and Bluetooth support, it will be possible to use controllers and peripherals with it other than the one it comes with. What this also opens the door for is piracy and emulation. No doubt a chunk of the audience interested in PCs are those intrigued by the idea of having a box that hooks up to a TV and can run Super Nintendo or Genesis emulators. Others will look at the system's open nature as an invitation to play its games for free; if it's as open as advertised, it should not be difficult to obtain and run illegally downloaded copies of PC games.

    Clearly no one will ever want to develop games for PCs.

Save gas, don't use the shell.

Working...