Had a good think and sleep on this. The biggest problem is that it doesn't solve a problem people have. The basis of this device is "Bringing gaming back to the TV" which makes no sense. 150 Million Wiis alone say otherwise. Throw in PS360 and the numbers get even more ridiculous.
Lets say out of the box it can run everything Android can sans device specific controls. It does technically have that library, but are those gaming experiences really what you want? How does that compare to games you could and can play on that computer you are using to read this right now? If you want a controller, a Bluetooth dongle costs less than $10. You more than likely have the controller. for $10 you can achieve what Ouya does for $100.
They contradict themselves with their opening statement "We love console games". Android was and never is about console gaming. It's a phone operating system first, gaming second. As I said before, 200 Million consoles sold speaks volumes as to how consoles aren't dead. Had this come out during a videogame crash, they might have an opening, but they are betting on the big 3 and PC to fold at the start of next gen and not fight it out. Not happening.
On the PC it is as open as it gets. You don't have to sell your game on Steam or heaven forbid Origin, you can go free range. You can have near limitless processing power to whatever you can squeeze out of net books. Different controllers, **** tons of open source libraries to use. Do developers seriously want to lock themselves to a box of stationary mobile parts when a more standard solution would be more bang for buck? Lets examine the developer quotes closely.
"This has the potential to be the game developer's console. It's about time!" -- Brian Fargo (founder of inXile)
Brian, I have a lot of respect for you, but you have it backwards. It has always been about the players, not you. If Brian's statement was true, PC would have crushed Nintendo after SNES.
“Who wouldn't want a beautiful piece of industrial design that sells for $99, plugs straight into your TV, and gives you access to a huge library of games?" – Jordan Mechner (creator of Prince of Persia, Karateka)
The Wii pretty much does this, right now or a PS2. Take your pick. It's such an open statement, it's meaningless.
“If OUYA delivers on the promise of being the first true open gaming platform that gives indie developers access to the living room gaming market, yes that is a great idea. We will follow the development of OUYA and see how it resonates with gamers. I could see all current Mojang games go on the platform if there's a demand for it.” – Mojang (developer of Minecraft)
This statement's first sentence is the closest to making any sense. Unfortunately it's still backwards. Whats so special or open about this? Ouya still needs to get it's cut like every other platform out there and will have no revenue stream outside of the box itself. The remaining sentences is actually completely noncommittal double talk. Besides the fact his game is a code nightmare, it's Java, inherently cross-platform. It's like saying I might make mince out of a cow, but I have steak and everyone is eating steak right now, I will wait for people to start asking for mince.
"I'm excited for OUYA! I am a firm believer that there is always room to challenge the status quo." -- Jenova Chen (thatgamecompany, creator of flOw, Cloud, and Flower)
There always room to challenge, but the question is is there room to stay? Big 3 economics say no. I played flOw and it's not a game. It's a bastard version of snake with a more gamey version back on BASIC.
“The prospect of an affordable, open console -- that's an idea I find really exciting.” -- Adam Saltsman (Semi Secret, creator of Canabalt)
Lets correct this statement. "The prospect of another device to sell my game on is exciting". Your game only uses one button. The effort required is trivial compared to the game itself.
"Our games will work so well on a TV, we just need an easy way to get them there. OUYA could be it." -- Marek Rabas (Madfinger Games)
"An open game console that gives independent game developers the flexibility to experiment with their games and business models on the TV, is something that's long overdue." – David Edery (Spry Fox, creator of Triple Town)
I rolled these two together because they say the same thing and have the same problem. The TV is a display device, nothing more. My computer is a "TV". Consoles with netflicks is a "TV". TV is something where you watch things on. There is inherently nothing special about it. What is special about it was for a long time it was the only display device in the house which is no longer the case. Bring mobile games to it isn't going to change that.
Have a look at the Mac App store. It's mostly rubbish ported mobile games with jury-rigged controls. The reason they are rubbish is that they are all mobile games which have a completely different design and gameplay criteria to a non-mobile, non-handheld games. This fundamental dissonance isn't going to be solved by throwing phone parts into a box.
One last note. their opening statement is worth a few laughs.
Cracking open the last closed platform: the TV. A beautiful, affordable console -- built on Android, by the creator of Jambox.
It's a TV, you pug things in and it displays it. It's neither closed or open. It's neutral and doesn't give a ****.
Topic: Ouya (Read 101081 times)
