Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Carcass]

Looking at amazon, a consumer could get a PS2, gamecube, xbox 1, DS, GBA, PSP, or even a Wii for under $99 (just looking at consoles made since 2000), each of which has a large library of games and each of which has great titles. Why a potential consumer purchase an Ouya instead of one of those?

Encouraging modified consoles seems detrimental to competitive multiplayer games, where ideally everyone should be on an even playing field hardware-wise.

[Dariush]

Encouraging modified consoles seems detrimental to competitive multiplayer games, where ideally everyone should be on an even playing field hardware-wise.

Uh, what? Nobody has a problem with this in any multiplayer game on PC, even though you'll be hard pressed to find two PCs with identical specifications.

[alway]

Encouraging modified consoles seems detrimental to competitive multiplayer games, where ideally everyone should be on an even playing field hardware-wise.

That's missing the point. The reason consoles have standardized hardware is because it gives developers a single platform to target. Start modifying hardware, and suddenly the user base splits in half. As a developer, you can then either shoot yourself in the foot and target the more power systems with less users or you can target the worst, most basic version of the system to make your game playable by all, but resulting in a lower amount of things the game can do before running into bottlenecks. Thus making the upgrades to the hardware entirely pointless, as the games won't make good use of it.

[mainiac]

Buy one of these and use it to watch hulu and netflix on your TV.

Now I know you all are thinking that your laptop does this just fine.  But a lot of longbeards don't like hooking their laptop up to the TV because that means messing around with cables.  For them $100 is an acceptable price to pay for having a dedicated console for such purposes. 

A few years back my parents got a $200-$250 computer to fill this role and cancelled their satellite subscription.  This purchase has more then payed for itself this way.  At $100 it would pay for itself even faster.

[lastverb]

Looks to me like this:

• Possibly more powerful than current-gen consoles, has twice as much RAM as the XBox 360. Not sure how powerful Tegra 3 is in real terms compared to the stuff in the XBox 360 and PS3, but what really matters is how it compares to next-gen consoles and computers.

Tegra 3 is quad core with 1.2-1.5 ghz (with 1.5 being just a original overclock). Used in tablets/smartphones, but newest ones alredy use its successors. It also have to do all the graphic computing on its own, and with *higher than phone* resolutions it will be extremly slow.
Even comparing to xbox360 its just ancient, X got triple core processor with 3.2 ghz and it also has a great gpu.
Its not better than current-gen, its bronze age for them.
Comparable to next-gens? Even my not so new laptop got quad core with twice the clock + strong gpu.

[Matz05]

If it has Ethernet it would make a cool TV-network interface box. Use an internet connection for Netflix and all that, as you said.

[quinnr]

For people concerned about it playing phone games (as I feel about my Tablet), it seems like their idea is to fund indie developers with extra money who plan on making games for this system. I am not sure if it will gain a ton of popularity anyways, but it's hard to tell.

[Astral]

The console has been presented, but...

The games and developers make the console a success. If people actually get on board with this, then it could succeed in its own right. Sure, it likely will not be anywhere near a competitor to the Big 3 of consoles, but it will carve out its niche and inspire a new generation of game programmers, those who can program for a console without a huge entry fee.

I for one am looking to get into programming for Android (games in general, and looking for a phone), and this would be a good way to do so.

[Rez]

Well, consumers make a game a success.  If there doesn't appear to be an audience, then no 3rd party developers will touch it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

we're on the forums of the new generation of game programmers.  They're independent and they're developing for PC's already.

[MrWiggles]

Buy one of these and use it to watch hulu and netflix on your TV.

Now I know you all are thinking that your laptop does this just fine.  But a lot of longbeards don't like hooking their laptop up to the TV because that means messing around with cables.  For them $100 is an acceptable price to pay for having a dedicated console for such purposes. 

A few years back my parents got a $200-$250 computer to fill this role and cancelled their satellite subscription.  This purchase has more then payed for itself this way.  At $100 it would pay for itself even faster.

That's what a Roku is for. And with the Roko you get a dedicated device for various streaming applications and get a greater variety, instead of /just/ netflix or hulu. We got a roku so we dont need to run the xbox for extended hours, or on particular hot days.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

How about a smartphone capable of connecting to HDMI (adapters, whatever) + app that turns it into a controller while displaying the display output on the TV + game-apps for mobile that have this setup as a control option (that is, you assume there will be a controller input which might be touchscreen or might be a USB controller AND the display output is NOT touchscreen because it'll be on your TV).

I'm figuring if that doesn't exist right now it can be cobbled together. Compatible apps are a problem. But if we get that, we don't need this OUYA. Play Angry Birds on any TV with your phone. We're really coming to a time when smartphones are powerful enough that anyone who doesn't need to type or play cutting-edge games can get away with owning a smartphone instead of a desktop or laptop. I'm surprised consoles have stuck around this long.

It sounds interesting as a developer's delight platform ... but we already have PCs for that :/

[Rez]

Smartphones aren't that powerful.  I know people are really really interested in hyping up how far computation has come, but a phone can't come close to what the current gen consoles do and they're all 6 years old.  Dedicated computing and gaming platforms aren't ever going to be made obsolete by computation/communication suites, unless we're making smart matter for our computers.

On the one hand using a large smartphone to replace your laptop makes sense, because it's more mobile and combines more useful functions in a single device, but they're also subpar at a large number of tasks that you use a laptop for.  Unless they've revolutionized browsing on smartphones, it's much less convenient and typing (used in such insignificant activities like email) is downright enraging without feedback.  While they are good for watching videos, smart phones also have small screens due to their form factor, which makes actually watching or reading things on them painful.  That's the main thing.  The optimal form factor of a phone and a personal computing device are different.

If you do a search for "iphone to tv" you'll see some solutions immediately.  I found a youtube video showing an android device (a galaxy maybe) hooking up to an hd tv through IP, though the latency was far too long for games, frame rate suffered too.  Cnet says "many android phones have HDMI ports", which means you'd just have to buy a cable.

I mean, it's kind of significant that we can't figure out what ouya is supposed to be for.  Presuming the competence of the business (which may be in question), they're seeing a niche in the market.  What I mean is they aren't just trying to release a console for pre-existing android games: their console would be over-designed for that and you can already play android games on the tv if you want.  They aren't trying to develop a new competitor for the big three: their hardware isn't anywhere close to powerful enough for that.  The open-source software and hardware is interesting, but that's a niche market of a niche market everywhere.  There are existing, cheaper solutions for streaming directly to your TV.

I guess it is still America, even during a recession.  It doesn't matter if there's a niche if you can get someone to decide that they need something and their kickstarter + media blitz did a good job of that.

[Viken]

In my opinion, its all realitive, anyway.  A standard cellphone produced in 1997 had more than 2000 times the processing power of the computers in the Apollo lunar capsules that made it to the moon and back.  While its true that the Tegra 3 cores aren't as powerful as some others that are available out there, the Android OS is much like the Java of operating systems.  Generally low-key and not very resource intensive on its own, meaning it can support higher ranges of programming that require more.

Also, most people here are missing the point about the hardware specs to begin with. Consoles, reguardless of their make or model, specialize in low RAM, but generally high processing power and high graphics; when compared to computers that have high RAM, medium processing power, and (mostly) low graphics.  The hardware wouldn't be too much of an issue, given that fact.   Plus, if the Ouya console itself can be opened and modified, it just means people could install their own upgrades and stuff to it, and could end up opening the whole system up like the PC market when it comes to customizable hardware.   Not nessissarily a bad thing.

The only bad thing I really see about it is the support and interest from the big-name developers.  With the consoles being so cheap, the creators of OUYA will have to make their money by selling the game developement rights with their hardware, which is easier said than done when everyone else is strictly interested with brand-named POS' like XBox, PlayStation, and Nintendo.  Not to mention the sort of legal troubles they could get if people start trying to port popular games (MineCraft, ect.) to OUYA as third-party products that go against trademarks.

All in all, I just want to sit back and watch to see how it goes for right now.

[Shadowlord]

The problem with the whole "But you can hook your smartphone or tablet to your TV already, in theory" plan, even assuming you rigged up a controller somehow, is that smartphones and tablets are expensive - especially smartphones, with the required data plan. Even the Kindle Fire is $199. This console is aiming to be $99 with a controller. Of course it won't have a built in screen, so that saves on expense.

The real problem is that despite the large amount of money they seem to have been pledged already, the market for this thing looks rather small for me unless they can manage to get some really frakking amazing games on it. Considering the hardware, I'd kind of suspect the vast majority would by necessity end up being retro in graphical style, non-3d, or 2.5d, possibly a few 3d games (if someone makes an amazing android / tegra 3 based 3d engine, there could be more, but I wouldn't want to bet on it being competitive with even the Wii U). It might work well for card games, board games, etc, some strategy games, and so on, but even on modern consoles players are used to these things being presented in full 3d with cards flipping and the like.

Now I loved a bunch of games that I played on the Commodore 64, for example, but that doesn't mean I would think they would be successful if put up against modern console titles, or that there is any way to easily turn them into profitable 'free to play' games without cutting out essential gameplay elements or adding new 'premium' elements - or making a singleplayer campaign that you have to pay for, and having multiplayer be free, or vice versa. Previous attempts to recreate some (Spy vs Spy, Archon, etc) have mostly resulted in either dead projects or failures to make much (if any) profit. In the case of M.U.L.E. there's a free online version available, which is actually fairly good, and actually completely free, somehow.

[alexandertnt]

I'd kind of suspect the vast majority would by necessity end up being retro in graphical style, non-3d, or 2.5d, possibly a few 3d games (if someone makes an amazing android / tegra 3 based 3d engine, there could be more, but I wouldn't want to bet on it being competitive with even the Wii U).

Both Unity and the Unreal Engine 3 are available for Android. The chip is quite capable of decent 3d graphics, even on a big screen (obviously not to the same as the modern consoles, but again, price).

Although I agree most games would likely not be 3d. Though not because of lack of 3d engines or GPU power, but because 3d games cost more to make and this console doesnt seem like the thing that would attract larger-funded projects.

The problem with the whole "But you can hook your smartphone or tablet to your TV already, in theory" plan, even assuming you rigged up a controller somehow, is that smartphones and tablets are expensive.

Exactly. Alot of people have suggested this as if everyone's pockets are infinitely deed and anyone could casually just go out andd get the 5 times more expensive thing instead. Its also why they push the "free games" thing, because this is targeted at people who cannot afford these expensive tablets and phones. Even if a Wii costs 150, the games can still cost alot.

Although I still have my doubt's as to how successful this will be. Especially as alot of people own PC's, and could just play random flash games etc. Or install x86 Android (although that requires more technical know-how). As for hacking, I think more people have their eyes set on the Raspberry Pi. I know I do.