OUYA - Cheap, Open-Source Android Game Console

cube wrote:

What's disturbing is that they're theoretically 9 months out from launch, but there isn't a dev kit, there isn't a controller API(or controller, for that matter), and they're telling devs that they should just use regular Android devices to develop on:
https://twitter.com/playouya/status/...

From a development perspective this isn't really that bad though. One of the few strengths of the Android platform is the portability of code between devices. It is all java I believe so with a few tweaks it is easy to get your games and apps running on other Android devices with similar or better power. The bigger problem with Android is deciding which devices to support because there are so damn many of them with vastly different capabilities. The problem Ouya has here is getting enough of these out into the world so that it makes sense to support them. The only thing really setting this apart from a Google TV device is shipping a controller with every one they sell.

Regarding the hardware not being finalized, the Xbox 360 was heavily altered in I believe July 2005 for a November 2005 launch. You're also constantly hearing about how Nintendo's hardware specs are in flux until the day manufacturing starts. I don't think it's that unusual.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Ulairi, your whole argument there assumes that this isn't coming to market. I have already said multiple times I don't agree that it won't.

This is the thing, and it's important to remember: they're selling the device. As long as they ship it with the specs they have listed, you're getting the thing, and it's not a failure.

Think about some actual retail consoles that existed on shelves and didn't find any real traction. How about Virtualboy? NGage? Playstation Phone? And a whole lot more? Did those companies rip off the people who bought those things? Or did the consumer just ultimately make a bad purchase?

Just because a console exists, doesn't mean that it will succeed, and anybody investing in a kickstarter project thinking that a wildly successful game ecosystem is inevitable is delusional and a poor student of history. The hardware and existing Android functionality of this thing is well worth the $99 price tag, even if it never has an exclusive game on it, and that's the thing people should make their purchasing decisions on.

Now, if they either don't come to market, or don't deliver the specs they listed, then I think we'll see some real (justified) backlash.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Regarding the hardware not being finalized, the Xbox 360 was heavily altered in I believe July 2005 for a November 2005 launch. You're also constantly hearing about how Nintendo's hardware specs are in flux until the day manufacturing starts. I don't think it's that unusual.

Except the alterations were replacing parts with similar specs that would help bring the price down. Developers already had an idea what they were aiming for technically. Also, the 360 was pretty much rushed to market and we all know how that turned out.

Yeah, absolutely there's a chance, a better chance than usual, that it'll be a failure. That's what the article from Kotaku I linked was getting at. I'm really glad my parents never hung on my insistence of getting an Atari Jaguar for Christmas in '94.

Also, a cursory glance at the Kickstarter terms of service brought to my attention a piece that's important to this discussion.

Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

Since a hardware unit is the reward in any tier above $95... Of course, as I said there's a slight possibility that the project funds, the creators put the money in a suitcase and leave the country. However, I'm sure that Kickstarter takes precautionary steps (including insurance, possibly) to prevent that sort of thing.

There's a section below that, which I thought possibly negated it, but that was just a disclaimer of responsibility for any mail damages or tertiary services related to goods obtained via reward.

kuddles wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

Regarding the hardware not being finalized, the Xbox 360 was heavily altered in I believe July 2005 for a November 2005 launch. You're also constantly hearing about how Nintendo's hardware specs are in flux until the day manufacturing starts. I don't think it's that unusual.

Except the alterations were replacing parts with similar specs that would help bring the price down. Developers already had an idea what they were aiming for technically. Also, the 360 was pretty much rushed to market and we all know how that turned out.

The 360 going from 256mb to 512mb of RAM wasn't a cost cutting thing, it was a big deal. And yeah the resulting instability was bad. But I've not been talking about Ouya's chances at success, just decrying the idea that it'll end up as vaporware.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Since a hardware unit is the reward in any tier above $95... Of course, as I said there's a slight possibility that the project funds, the creators put the money in a suitcase and leave the country. However, I'm sure that Kickstarter takes precautionary steps (including insurance, possibly) to prevent that sort of thing.

There's a section below that, which I thought possibly negated it, but that was just a disclaimer of responsibility for any mail damages or tertiary services related to goods obtained via reward.

Eh. Kickstarter is very very hands-of on policing the "platform". http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/...

kuddles wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

Regarding the hardware not being finalized, the Xbox 360 was heavily altered in I believe July 2005 for a November 2005 launch. You're also constantly hearing about how Nintendo's hardware specs are in flux until the day manufacturing starts. I don't think it's that unusual.

Except the alterations were replacing parts with similar specs that would help bring the price down. Developers already had an idea what they were aiming for technically. Also, the 360 was pretty much rushed to market and we all know how that turned out.

The biggest change in this case was that they doubled the RAM which really wouldn't have negatively effected devs at that stage. No way it would have lasted as long as it has with only 256 megs.

The PCMag thing just reads like an "I hate Kickstarter" rant rather than a coherent criticism of this specific project. Just because some other projects he picked out are failing (are they? he doesn't even prove that, he just says they aren't to market yet) doesn't mean this one will.

TheGameguru wrote:

Again though.. your competing with an already existing installed base.. I would agree with your point if not for the fact that there are millions of PC's out there.. many in the last few years that despite not having a dedicated GPU can play all sorts of casual games... There are probably very few people that are left that this device would be marketed to that don't have some sort of existing platform that would be a competitor.

Your point is well taken. The other thing I wasn't really considering: you need a way to deliver games to this device, and that requires that you already have wireless networking in your house, and anybody who has wifi will almost surely already have a device capable of running casual games.

Of course, I do think there is some number of people who would use a $99 console to play games and wouldn't play games on a PC for various reasons. I just don't know how large that number is.

The key thing to remember, though, is that this is basically a standard Android device, except it has a funky control mechanism. If, like Zynga, you're already targeting Android, you don't have to port a game to this thing, you just have to make sure the control scheme works, and it probably doesn't take too many additional users to make that effort worthwhile.

The Tegra 3 brings some decent "power" at $100 though which will be impressive if developers take full advantage of it and develop games tailored for this device and a console friendly control scheme... Besides who wouldnt want to see a game that looks more impressive and plays even smoother than a current Xbox 360 game on a device like this.. it would disruptive and in the end would only benefit us as the consumer.

This is really the most compelling thing about the device: Tegra 3 is a serious chunk of hardware. Coming at the end of the current console cycle like it is, it actually competes well with the "real" console hardware, and there's a lot of potential hidden away there.

Rykin wrote:

No way it would have lasted as long as it has with only 256 megs.

The PS3 is blushing. (I'm not a huge tech-head but I do recall hearing that's what it packs)

Actually after googling it seems it's a split 256 graphics and 256 system. Not sure what that counts as compared to the 360 <_>

Blind_Evil wrote:
Rykin wrote:

No way it would have lasted as long as it has with only 256 megs.

The PS3 is blushing. (I'm not a huge tech-head but I do recall hearing that's what it packs)

Actually after googling it seems it's a split 256 graphics and 256 system. Not sure what that counts as compared to the 360 <_>

Mainly it makes the Xbox 360 more flexible in how developers make use of the RAM since they can divide the 512 up however they need to between the GPU and CPU. Also the PS3 has some bad bottled necks regarding it's RAM and is tough to program which is part of how the Xbox is staying competitive with it.

You could spin that the other way, too, that only super-brilliant programmers are letting the PS3 keep up with the 360.

You know, every time I see the title of this thread, I start hearing that track from Yello.

Movie Bob ended his Escape to the Movies video with a picture of the Ouya, with the caption "Fingers Crossed".

OH. MY. GOD. My Google TV finally has a purpose.

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/...

Seems like outside funding is still up in the air

http://www.develop-online.net/featur...

Original article

TheGameguru wrote:

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/...

Seems like outside funding is still up in the air

http://www.develop-online.net/featur...

Original article

I don't really understand the conclusions of Develop's article. As I read it, the author seems to imply that it was somehow wrong for OUYA to use Kickstarter, when they should have been well positioned to seek traditional funding. I'm not sure I understand the author's reasoning behind that conclusion (or maybe I just don't understand what he's getting at to begin with).

I think it's clear that these guys are going to want additional funding of some sort, because even in a best case scenario the Kickstarter pledges at the $99 level are going to barely pay for the initial run of already spoken for devices. A hybrid approach - with both Kickstarter funding to prove demand, and traditional funding to cover costs until they can get to market - absolutely seems to make sense.

Agree. The author seems to question the ethics of using KS for a project that already has outside venture funds?

Craig Chapple wrote:

But despite lofty and noble ambitions to break down the walls constructed by the likes of Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft in the console space, was it ethical to use the popular crowdfunding site Kickstarter to gain funding the project?

Craig Chapple wrote:

Revealing that Ouya would have taken the project to Kickstarter regardless means that, without a doubt, the crowdfunding site has been used as a promotional tool to gather awareness in an incredibly hard to break into market.

Having been through 3.5 start-ups (.5 was when I came in as employee 20 in a shop that eventually had 3000+), you can't have too much of these two things: money and awareness.

But here's the "crime":

Craig Chapple wrote:

However many will look at the crowdfunding campaign as $4.4m and counting not just going to a new console - but money lost that could have gone to other Kickstarter-using developers, too.

Yes, because KS is obviously a zero-sum game. Those dollars would most certainly have flowed into other projects.

Now, I don't give two craps about OUYA and whether or not it ever sees the light of day. I just take issue with this dude intimating that taking money and raising awareness from any source available is somehow a bad thing when starting a business.

I ended up canceling my backing, I might back before it's over but I am really wary of it now.

"Let me be clear, OUYA is not seeking additional funding outside of Kickstarter. Our priority now is to continue to focus on building a great game console while engaging in our ongoing Kickstarter campaign."
"Our intent in going to Kickstarter was to raise money that would take us from functional prototype to product on the market."
"With respect to our funding, we have been candid in disclosing an early round raised through friends and family that included backing from investors like Digg founder Jay Adelson, Flixster founder Joe Greenstein, and Jawbone founder Hosain Rahman."
"We do not intend to engage in any conversations related to funding while we are on Kickstarter. And, it's not like we are going to start speed dialing VCs as soon as the Kickstarter campaign ends. Once our Kickstarter campaign closes funding our priority will be getting OUYA to market, and delivering the best game experience possible. Fundraising will not be top of the list."
"Unfortunately, I think this rumor sprung from a misunderstood answer during an interview and we are trying to contact the reporter to clarify."

Their reply on it all. Seems honest to me.

People seem to have very defined guidelines of what Kickstarter is and needs to be- thinking of this and the Penny Arcade criticism. I don't have an opinion on what it need to be, and am interested a bit more in what it can be. A lot of project already have outside funding, in a manner (games that have has $ poured into it and use Kickstarter for finally funding and for distribution of their game). I think skepticism of technology is good, though at some point it does seem like rooting against the project for some odd reason.

gore wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/...

Seems like outside funding is still up in the air

http://www.develop-online.net/featur...

Original article

I don't really understand the conclusions of Develop's article. As I read it, the author seems to imply that it was somehow wrong for OUYA to use Kickstarter, when they should have been well positioned to seek traditional funding. I'm not sure I understand the author's reasoning behind that conclusion (or maybe I just don't understand what he's getting at to begin with).

I think it's clear that these guys are going to want additional funding of some sort, because even in a best case scenario the Kickstarter pledges at the $99 level are going to barely pay for the initial run of already spoken for devices. A hybrid approach - with both Kickstarter funding to prove demand, and traditional funding to cover costs until they can get to market - absolutely seems to make sense.

I would guess the "issue" is that unlike a "traditional" KS project.. with this project.. you might get a finished product.. but without a decent enough user base your product might essentially be a $99 paper weight.. whereas a KS that produces a game.. really needs no outside money or continued success to be useful to the initial KS "investors"

They are going to need more than $5 million if they want to actually get this thing to market. I cannot just go with orders for 50,000 units and and say the $99 is going to cover getting the thing into manufacturing. Why are they being so coy about seeking outside funding?

I still wouldn't purchase this over a Google TV (does Google TV just run regular android?) or a Roku player. I have a feeling that this thing is going to get nuked from space by AppleTV. There is no way they are going to hit a March launch date.

Ulairi wrote:

Why are they being so coy about seeking outside funding?

Because backers still have a couple of weeks to change their minds. I think the coy attitude will be replaced by something a bit more pragmatic once the check clears.

Ulairi wrote:

They are going to need more than $5 million if they want to actually get this thing to market. I cannot just go with orders for 50,000 units and and say the $99 is going to cover getting the thing into manufacturing. Why are they being so coy about seeking outside funding?

I still wouldn't purchase this over a Google TV (does Google TV just run regular android?) or a Roku player. I have a feeling that this thing is going to get nuked from space by AppleTV. There is no way they are going to hit a March launch date.

The specs on this are substantially better than GTV and Roku, and the fact that it runs Android makes it much more flexible than Roku (which is extensible to some extent, but Roku doesn't play ball with Goog and you miss out on things like, say, Google Play Music support).

If this product actually existed in the form they're advertising, I think it could be a better choice than either GTV or Roku or Nexus Q. However, the fact that it's still a year out means that all of those products are going to be one generation better before it's even released, and whatever hardware advantage it has now will likely be erased.

Establishing a supply chain is several orders of magnitude more expensive than maintaining it. For the cost that I would wager these guys are going to pay per unit, $5 million would probably end up barely keeping the lights on.

gore wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

They are going to need more than $5 million if they want to actually get this thing to market. I cannot just go with orders for 50,000 units and and say the $99 is going to cover getting the thing into manufacturing. Why are they being so coy about seeking outside funding?

I still wouldn't purchase this over a Google TV (does Google TV just run regular android?) or a Roku player. I have a feeling that this thing is going to get nuked from space by AppleTV. There is no way they are going to hit a March launch date.

The specs on this are substantially better than GTV and Roku, and the fact that it runs Android makes it much more flexible than Roku (which is extensible to some extent, but Roku doesn't play ball with Goog and you miss out on things like, say, Google Play Music support).

If this product actually existed in the form they're advertising, I think it could be a better choice than either GTV or Roku or Nexus Q. However, the fact that it's still a year out means that all of those products are going to be one generation better before it's even released, and whatever hardware advantage it has now will likely be erased.

I think the Ouya never meant to outmatch any of the next consoles to come but to kinda sit on a solid yet flexible platform for cheap with a potentially huge userbase if next games are made for it and android phones as well. 5 or 10 million dollars aren't going to cut it if you want to stand among the big players. The magic sauce to printing money is a tad more expensive

Just got home from my local monthly game dev meetup group and the Ouya pretty much dominated 3 straight hours of conversation amongst 20+ devs. There were quite a few guys that basically kept going around and around saying that this was "a developer's console" and that it'll be easier for indies to get noticed. I had a few arguments against that that nobody really had answers for... That if they ship their original planned 90K allotment, at a 70/30 equity split you would need to sell your game to 1000 of those consoles (~1% of the install base) to make back the $700 "Early SDK" cost. Seems kind of a high number with a low saturation device to justify the expense. My second argument is that there are already 600000 games on Google's app store. What happens when a sizable portion of those are ported over to Ouya, diluting the market to the point where your game gets buried like it would on Apple or Google's app stores. And what happens when Zynga or Popcap appears on the platform, potentially wiping out the visibility for indies altogether.

No one really had good answers to any of those criticisms. It was a little unnerving actually, because there were 5 developers fully engaged on the idea that they were going to get rich or noticed being on the Ouya. When conversation about Steam Greenlight came up, a couple people were concerned that Steam might screw it up or that the results might be skewed as part of a Kickstarter campaign and that was it. No one was really taking Greenlight as a serious avenue to have their game discovered. It was maybe 5 minutes of conversation total.

Kind of fascinating really... These are strange times we live in.

LockAndLoad wrote:

That if they ship their original planned 90K allotment, at a 70/30 equity split you would need to sell your game to 1000 of those consoles (~1% of the install base) to make back the $700 "Early SDK" cost. Seems kind of a high number with a low saturation device to justify the expense. My second argument is that there are already 600000 games on Google's app store. What happens when a sizable portion of those are ported over to Ouya, diluting the market to the point where your game gets buried like it would on Apple or Google's app stores. And what happens when Zynga or Popcap appears on the platform, potentially wiping out the visibility for indies altogether.

This is exactly why no team larger than 2 to 3 people are going to make a game for it at release. It just doesn't make sense, economically, to spend more than a few weeks of a single developer's time to get a game on there when you could be making games for iOS or Google Play's Android store.

Let's say that a good quality game could be made for the console in about 6 months by a 3 man team working full time on it. Assuming $50k/year salaries(which is actually quite low, considering they're going to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket, and that it's about the average starting developer's salary across all industries). That means that to pay them all(and assuming that all the other costs have already been covered), they need to make about $75k from the game after those 6 months.

They cannot make that money at the $.99 price point, even with 100% of the install base buying it. At $2, you need about 53k sales. Still unreasonably high.

At $10, it becomes almost reasonable. There, you only need about 10.5k sales, which is about 12% of the install base. But nobody's going to buy at that price point.

I think it's cool to see all the interest in this idea, and would love to see a truly open console, but the pitch is just your typical, overeager marketing spin. It hits all the right buzz words, promises a lot of cool things and yet never really touches base with reality or provides any demonstration of feasibility. Their erroneous claims/insinuations about what games will be on the platform along with the fact that they thought they could do this for <$1m is shows that the business plan is pure fantasy.

Also, Android is a painful platform for game development. It's certainly possible to make games but Google has failed to invest in anything beyond the bare minimum support. Their SDK and overall platform philosophy is focused on much lighter apps (things more like search, their core strength).