Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Startup Aims For $99, Android-Powered TV Game Console

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the unification-of-devices dept.

Android 194

rodrigoandrade writes "Ouya is a new Android-based home console that aims to bring to the living room the $0.99 games business model that has worked so well for Apple. The device 'will allow developers to easily create and sell their games and be fully “hackable” — anyone will be able to pull the machine apart and tinker with it to their heart’s content.' They're planning on shipping by March 2013. Admittedly, it's vaporware so far, but it could turn the industry on its head, effectively putting an end to the things we all hate about modern console gaming ($60 games, DLC, DRM, endless sequels, movie tie-ins, etc.)"

cancel ×

194 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Even GPU costs more (-1, Troll)

Rtrtr (2681193) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604477)

Seriously. And since it's Android powered they don't even have the advantage of recouping costs via games. Ultimate failure. Google sucks.

Re:Even GPU costs more (5, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604513)

Re:Even GPU costs more (0, Troll)

bucceneerwagstrom (2681251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604539)

Personally I'm excited. Not because of the console itself, but the new way Google is taking with Android. They've been knowing for a while now that Microsoft is overtaking them with Bing, so instead of trying to fight a losing battle they keep moving to new territories. Ultimately Google will end up as hardware company with tangible products.

Re:Even GPU costs more (4, Insightful)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604703)

Microsoft overtaking Google with Bing? What world do you live in? Instead of googling people in this world, do you Bing them?

Re:Even GPU costs more (0, Troll)

bucceneerwagstrom (2681251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604795)

It's already happening. Google is losing in Russia to Yandex and in China to Baidu. Now, Microsoft is also overtaking Google in North America. Bing had 32% market share an year ago - now they have close to 40%. I'd say by the end of the year it will have something like 42%, and by 2015 it has majority at 60%

Re:Even GPU costs more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604829)

source?

Re:Even GPU costs more (4, Funny)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605029)

His mom Mrs. Ballmer told him.

Re:Even GPU costs more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605037)

It's already happening. Google is losing in Russia to Yandex and in China to Baidu. Now, Microsoft is also overtaking Google in North America. Bing had 32% market share an year ago - now they have close to 40%. I'd say by the end of the year it will have something like 42%, and by 2015 it has majority at 60%

Calm down there Ballmer...your investors aren't looking here, so stop trying to impress them with bullshit.

Re:Even GPU costs more (3, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605163)

Bing vs. Google: Fight! [wolframalpha.com] Yeah, Bing loses pretty badly.

Re:Even GPU costs more (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605701)

And by 2030, it'll have over 150% share, right?

Re:Even GPU costs more (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605717)

That isn't reflected by the statistics. gs.statcounter.com, which many give credibility to on this site, shows Google at 56.67% in Russia with Yandex at 40.91%. Baidu has of course been in front of google forever in China, and statcounter shows 56.31% for Baidu and 38.97% for Google there.

As for Bing - surely you are trolling - could anyone believe this?! I haven't yet looked at the numbers but will do so now. Sure enough, statcounter has google use at 79.73% in the USA, and Bing use at 9.75%, just edging in front of Yahoo.

Canada has google use at 91.37%, while Mexico is at 94.25% google.

Please tell me where you get your stats from bucceneerwagstrom - they appear to be totally different to the figures that trusted major sites report.

Re:Even GPU costs more (0)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604867)

I don't use Bing much, but when I have I've found it does suck less than Google. Google's approach seems to be 'people love lots of search results, so let's be 'smart' and return as many search results as we can that remotely resemble what they asked us to search for', whereas I just want it to give me the twenty results which actually match the thing I asked it to search for.

For technical queries, Google is pretty much useless these days because it's so 'smart'.

Re:Even GPU costs more (3, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605033)

This seems like shameless propaganda. If Bing is so much better why don't you use Bing much? Maybe because Bing is not better at all? I do a lot of technical research and I have never felt Google lacking on finding me the results I need...

Re:Even GPU costs more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605111)

I've found Google's gotten /worse/ at finding technical information over the past 5 years or so (esp. the last one or two), but it's the best I've found. Yes, I'm searching for "python pickles" I want to know about the programming language, not Brittney Spears' pickle-shaped wart and pet python or whatever.

Please weight your priors less kthxbye.

Re:Even GPU costs more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604895)

He lives in the same world where Windows is in danger because everyone decided that OS X and Linux are better.

Re:Even GPU costs more (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604733)

You're either insane, a troll, or a more subtle than average astroturfer. Maybe that can be tomorrow's Slashdot poll....

Re:Even GPU costs more (2)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604755)

Hum. Your first posts are today... I'm thinking Astroturfer...

Re:Even GPU costs more (5, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605417)

Subtle? His username is a play on his employer's name. [waggeneredstrom.com]

Re:Even GPU costs more (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605759)

Ah now I get modded up. They had to openly mock us before people took the shilling problem seriously.

lulz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604827)

They've been knowing for a while now that Microsoft is overtaking them with Bing, so instead of trying to fight a losing battle ...

someone plz mod the parent up as Funny

SHILL SPOTTED (5, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605359)

Haha check out the name, a play on Waggener-Edstrom [waggeneredstrom.com]

oh crap - wasted 5 minuted replying to this tool (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605883)

Newly registered account. Nonsense figures given below indicate a huge and logically unjustifiable pro-microsoft stance.

Bing has 40% marketshare in North America - my ass. There should be an option to vote to delete first-time accounts that post nothing but propaganda.

I hate Microsoft less than I used to - but when slime like you comes along to promote your false statistics, I remember again why Microsoft are not good people.

Re:Even GPU costs more (2)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604639)

It also does not have a Tegra 3 — Quad-core processor, a controller., and Bluetooth support.

Re:Even GPU costs more (1)

bucceneerwagstrom (2681251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604693)

It's outstanding sometimes how technical France actually is. No wonder Ubisoft comes from there. Google would do better if it let Ubi to handle this rather than set up some shell company and act like it's some sort of start up.

Re:Even GPU costs more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604667)

Where's the game controller?

The Wired article has a pic of the controller (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604761)

Where's the game controller?

Try reading the Wired article with images turned on. It looks like an Xbox 360 controller with a laptop-style trackpad in the middle.

Re:The Wired article has a pic of the controller (1)

dbraden (214956) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605851)

AC's question of "Where's the game controller?" was referring to the mini-android (which is just a media player) linked in the comment by Shikaku, and said that it was "something that already exists, and for cheaper."

The two devices aren't comparable.

Re:Even GPU costs more (-1, Offtopic)

bucceneerwagstrom (2681251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604763)

Where's the game controller?

In my girlfriends vagina. She likes to 'play' like that. True story, don't ask me....

Different Specs: quad core a9 vs single core A8... (1)

IYagami (136831) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605027)

... and I could continue with differences in the gpu (nvidia Tegra vs unknown gpu)

These things matter for a videoconsole

Re:Even GPU costs more (1)

adisakp (705706) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604545)

Seriously. And since it's Android powered they don't even have the advantage of recouping costs via games. Ultimate failure. Google sucks.

It uses a QuadCore Tegra 3 which integrates a GPU. The price for this chip is between $15-25 depending on quantity purchased and the contract terms with NVidia. Still it's seems like an extremely lean margin given development costs and other physical devices as well as a game controller.

Re:Even GPU costs more (-1, Troll)

bucceneerwagstrom (2681251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604635)

And the fact that it cannot play any games that other consoles can. Google is failing with Android and they cannot keep it together or controlled.

Re:Even GPU costs more (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604731)

And the fact that it cannot play any games that other consoles can.

Wii can't play Xbox 360 or PS3 games. When Wii first came out, it couldn't play games made for the original Xbox or the PS2 either.

So what stops developers from porting games, especially indie games, to this platform? The only excuse I can see is as follows: "The 1983 crash proved Theodore Sturgeon's revelation that well over 90 percent of indie games are utter crap, and we don't want to be on the same platform as utter crap."

Re:Even GPU costs more (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605367)

Of course, the 1983 crash only happened if you ignore the gaming systems that everybody moved to by listening to marketing and declaring consoles and computers completely different animals with no crossover in market. Not to mention that all of the games moved to platforms with more indie development.

Re:Even GPU costs more (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605523)

Of course, the 1983 crash only happened if you ignore the gaming systems that everybody moved to

How many players could play at once on one of these computers? Sure, technically, a PC can take multiple gamepads, especially since the introduction of USB in 1999. But in practice, statistically nobody does that, as CronoCloud and others have repeatedly explained to me.

by listening to marketing and declaring consoles and computers completely different animals with no crossover in market.

As I understand it, the general public listened to marketing.

Re:Even GPU costs more (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604759)

Android is failing its way to the most popular smartphone?

If this can run the OnLive android app it will be able to run all the standard AAA games.

Recouping 30% of game sales (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604805)

And since it's Android powered they don't even have the advantage of recouping costs via games.

From the Wired article: "Thirty percent of revenue will go to Ouya, the rest to the developer." This is the same deal as the App Store and Xbox Live Indie Games. However, unlike with iOS and Xbox 360, the article appears to imply that there won't even be a $99 per year hurdle before developers can get their feet wet: "every Ouya box sold includes a software development kit at no extra cost."

Re:Recouping 30% of game sales (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605937)

From the Wired article: "Thirty percent of revenue will go to Ouya, the rest to the developer." This is the same deal as the App Store and Xbox Live Indie Games. However, unlike with iOS and Xbox 360, the article appears to imply that there won't even be a $99 per year hurdle before developers can get their feet wet: "every Ouya box sold includes a software development kit at no extra cost."

And that... will be the death of it.

Let's ignore first the games cost issue. The problem will be piles of people see "make money fast! make games on this!" and release a pile of steaming turds for 99 cents. It's happened to the Apple App Store, Google Play, and other stores *(Xbox Indie Arcade, anyone?) and those already demand some level of commitment (Apple $99/year and people still do it). Sure it's all cool and all that, but people will just see "make money! free tools!" and crank out crap after crap after crap, making it impossible to find or discover the good stuff.

Also, at 99 cents, the people who do good games will probably split their game up into 5-10 "episodes" in order to charge the $5/10 they wanted in the first place.

It's an intriguing thing, but will probably be flooded with crap soon enough. And do the economics support such a system? The whole point of the 99 cent apps are something you can grab for the few dead minutes you have - in a lineup, waiting for something, etc, as something to do. A home console - well, players tend to have more time to invest in a game and consequently demand more involved games.

Basically "playtime" vs "spare moment time".

Not that revolutionary (3, Informative)

melonman (608440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604497)

In France, where almost all domestic broadband is "triple play" (phone, TV and Internet), at least two of the major ISPs offers gaming as part of the functionality of their latest glorified router package. You can't get much easier to install than "It's already there", and the ISPs already have a distribution model that they use to sell view-on-demand video.

Re:Not that revolutionary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604613)

So does the US, and other countries. Now how does that garbage relate to an open Android games console that will have access to several million "apps"?

Re:Not that revolutionary (1)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604675)

There won't be several million "apps" unless you count each of the tetris and minesweeper clones separately.

Re:Not that revolutionary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605445)

How about when you stop trolling, open your closed mind and start counting Mass Effect, Dead Space, NOVA, GTA3, Shadow gun, and on and on? Have fun trolling in the answer below.

Re:Not that revolutionary (1)

melonman (608440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604697)

If you want to organise your address book with a joystick or find the nearest restaurant to your television, not at all. But if we're talking about games, I don't think there are "millions" of great games for Android. ISPs who already resell TV channels may have one or two ideas about how to licence games. For example, you don't need to read French to spot the logos and brands on this ISP's website [www.free.fr]

Re:Not that revolutionary (3, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604683)

In France, where almost all domestic broadband is "triple play" (phone, TV and Internet), at least two of the major ISPs offers gaming as part of the functionality of their latest glorified router package. You can't get much easier to install than "It's already there", and the ISPs already have a distribution model that they use to sell view-on-demand video.

What kind of content do they offer? Bejeweled? Card games? What's the controller like?

At the end of the day, "just showing up", though important, doesn't help when the content or usability are weak. That's like the VOD I have for Dish Network - completely uninterested, even if it was free - there's better stuff on Netflix or Amazon Video and it's easier to access those with a Roku.

Yeah, but... (3, Insightful)

Kergan (780543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604511)

The $.99 business model only works for ios devs because there are millions of devices in the wild. How many do they plan to sell? It's not like standard android apps blow up to the size of tablets or --worse-- tv screens is attracting customers by the millions.

Re:Yeah, but... (4, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604625)

That's not even to mention that there is a huge disparity in quality between $0.99 games and $60 games.

Don't get me wrong, there are a TON of shit games released for full consoles that aren't worth $6, let alone $60, and there are a ton of excellent games available for android/ios that are easily worth the $1, $2, or even up to $5 price tags that go along with them...

but you aren't going to ever get a Diablo III / Mass effect / Modern Warfare / etc level game on android/ios for $1. ain't happening. sheer logistics of development team size.

and i'm cool with that. there's no need to have only one or the other. we can have both.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604673)

For those kinds of games OnLive is one solution that would work with a $50 console.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605377)

ok, i've played all the ME3 games and while good they are not that special. same with CoD and most other games i see.

walk in straight line, shoot from cover, repeat. add in a few cut scenes and dialogue for story. same with all the hyped games from E3 like last of us and tomb raider. the graphics are nice but the gameplay is crappola. reminds me of the mid 1990's "interactive movie" fad. except it was watch cut scene, do some quick game play, repeat.

Netflix box that also plays games (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604629)

The $.99 business model only works for ios devs because there are millions of devices in the wild. How many do they plan to sell?

If the product can play Netflix video, they can sell it as a Netflix box that also plays Facebook and video games. Apple TV doesn't have video games unless you count beaming an iPad app, in which case you still need an external Bluetooth gamepad (sold separately) in order to be able to see what you're doing.

Re:Netflix box that also plays games (1)

glop (181086) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604819)

The Roku with the game remote is about 85$ or so. But it doesn't run Android unfortunately, so you need to write proprietary scripts and there is no browser etc.
Apart from not running Android, the main issue with the Roku is that it's not open and they take steps to block cool scripts and websites that allow you to access Youtube or Hulu or other normal video sites. Apparently Roku has to be cosy with content producers and middlemen and so they make sure you can't use the Roku as a cheap and convenient PC. If they did that you could access content that's free for PC users but on your TV and it would ruin the market for Hulu+, Netflix and other companies that sell subscriptions.

So I expect that a box that gives the user a lot of freedom will meet a lot of resistance from the content producers and middlemen as they try to preserve the very high revenues of the TV market.

Re:Netflix box that also plays games (1)

darkwing_bmf (178021) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604923)

It wouldn't hurt Netflix as they require a subscription to stream to a PC (or anything else) but it would hurt Hulu where streaming to a PC is free but they require a sub to stream to a non-PC device.

Re:Netflix box that also plays games (1)

The Good Reverend (84440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604963)

The Roku is also vastly underpowered to do anything with a web browser (on purpose - Roku strives to be simple and cheap), and yes, they probably do need to keep cozy with content providers, for various reasons. Roku's got by far the largest variety of channels, so they're doing something well. And don't fool yourself - NONE of the set-top boxes (that aren't also HTPCs) will play regular Hulu or anything else that's specifically "web only". Right or wrong, that's just how things are going with content right now.

The Roku is closed in some ways, but it has an open SDK for channel development, and will soon have (or may now - I haven't been following that closely) an open SDK for gaming development. There are already several dozen games made specifically for the gaming box (and dozens more that work with any of the rokus).

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604659)

Reading comprehension obvious isn't your strong point. Here's a clue: it's Android base, as in, what works on your Android phone or table, is probably going to be ok on this.

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604723)

But there weren't "million of devices" when the business model was introduced. In fact, I'll say there are "millions of devices" PRECISELY BECAUSE apps cost only 0.99, when similar apps in other mobile platforms (i.e. Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, at the time) cost more.

Re:Yeah, but... (4, Interesting)

flitty (981864) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604803)

It's a foot in the door though. Android (and portable) gaming has no central hub. The first company to create one that supports a controller, a ranking system, and an ecosystem of development will take hold of the space. I'm honestly surprised that Steam hasn't done anything yet in mobile gaming.

If you can create an open box like this with a store and a controller, the TV box becomes secondary to the store and the OS compatability. The store is there to enforce a few rules (supports free gameplay in any form, even if just a demo, no hax, possibly multiplayer, will run on the set top box, etc), then you can use that storefront to refine the purchase of games. For instance, you could show correctly if a game has the information to scale to a TV size screen, or back down to a phone size. You also get a controller with standardized input, which is a huge deal for games. I think that if this is successful, it will be a huge win for indie gaming and gaming advancement in general. It won't kill more powerful consoles, but it is filling a hole in the market.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605875)

I'm honestly surprised that Steam hasn't done anything yet in mobile gaming.

Valve would rather sell the games normally on PCs for $50-60 for $20, rather than sell apps that normally sell for $0.99.

In other words, Valve already has their market and apparently it's doing very, VERY well.

Re:Yeah, but... (3, Interesting)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605605)

That is one of the nice things about Android. It is specifically designed to handle multiple resolutions. That means that the difference between a TV size optimized game and a phone size optimized game can be as little as exporting your graphic resources at different resolutions. The device is a $99 device. It doesn't have to solve every problems, or be the height of technology. Making any product is always a feature/quality tradeoff with cost to manufacture. This company obviously believes that for a lot of people, MS, SONY, and even Nintendo have pushed the cost of manufacture too high.

My guess is that they are right. I know that I would be satisfied with moving backwards a generation in console power to get out from under the thumb of the big three. Last generation's systems were pretty darn good.

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605871)

I can't wait to play shitty iphone and casual games on my telemavision!

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

lordofthechia (598872) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605907)

Remember that this has the same hardware and the same OS as Tablets that are getting released now. From wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

Asus Eee Pad Transformer Prime, IdeaTab K2 / LePad K2, Acer Iconia Tab A510, Acer Iconia Tab A700, LG Optimus 4X HD, HTC One X, ZTE Era, ZTE PF 100, ZTE T98, Toshiba AT270, Toshiba AT300 (Excite 10), Asus Tablet 610, Fuhu Inc. nabi 2 Tablet, Asus Nexus 7, Asus Transformer 300 and 700.

So anybody who has written an app that runs on any of those tablets/devices just has to add the ability for the app to recognize the input from the controller. Keep in mind the controller will also have a touchpad (for apps that want to still use the old interface). Plus if it's as open as they say, it's only a matter of weeks (if not days) before someone adds the Google Play store to it.

Also the inverse applies too. A developer can make a game for the OUYA and then produce a touchscreen input version of the game for the tablets listed above (and even a graphically scaled back version for Tegra2 tablets).

Consoles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604581)

Are the cancer killing video games.

Re:Consoles (0)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605443)

Consoles have been in the home WAY longer than PC's, pal.

This ought to be good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604615)

Right next to my $65 tablet, $1000 car, and embedded linux desktop on a flash drive.

At what point does someone stop the self-hate and just pay for good things like an adult?

Re:This ought to be good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604695)

At what point does someone stop being poor and making use of what they have and just go into debt to buy whatever they want like an adult?

FTFY.

Re:This ought to be good (1)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604749)

The same day that someone realizes there will be no Year of the Linux Desktop.

Whup Di Do Da (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604637)

Tuesday is no news day!

Is the audience here this lame that such a crap piece aka slashvertizement goes by and it's just another column filler and so it goes?

Why, yes, yes it is.

Media Playback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604681)

If it can play everything I want to be able to player I would purchase a device like this. I want playback from DVD and Blueray ISO files plus MKV, AVI,MP4,Mpeg from a network drive with codecs sets as flexible as a windows PC.

Won't happen (2)

mister2au (1707664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604721)

Where is the market?

Anyone that has a decent enough TV to want to use it for Android apps is also likely to already have:
- a games console
- a PC/laptop
- a smartphone

$99 price point will never cover any real marketing cost so this is a niche geek product at best

And with the lack of depth of $0.99 games there is not a hope of "turing the industry on its head"

Destined for failure in my books!

Why consoles, PCs, and smartphones fail (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604907)

Anyone that has a decent enough TV to want to use it for Android apps is also likely to already have:
- a games console

Unless they want to go beyond the selection of games that the console makers allow to be ported to the consoles.

- a PC/laptop

Say you have friends over, and they didn't all happen to bring gaming laptops and copies of the same game. In this case, games that run on something connected to your TV are a better choice for multiplayer than most PC games because most PC games don't support multiple gamepads. This in turn is because statistically nobody (outside the geek demographic that reads Slashdot) uses a PC with a TV-sized monitor.

- a smartphone

There are several genres of video games that don't work on a smartphone because they really need a gamepad, and something like the iControlPad doesn't come bundled with most smartphones. What sort of control method is workable for a platformer or a fighting game on a smartphone?

Re:Why consoles, PCs, and smartphones fail (3, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605151)

- a smartphone

There are several genres of video games that don't work on a smartphone because they really need a gamepad, and something like the iControlPad doesn't come bundled with most smartphones. What sort of control method is workable for a platformer or a fighting game on a smartphone?

Atleast Android does support gamepads, ie. if you have an Android phone just plug it in your TV and game away.

Re:Why consoles, PCs, and smartphones fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605167)

All your points are... um... "valid" in the wondrous sub-dimension of geek whimsy. Only there.

And then along came the GP32 of times past, as well as its successors both direct and spiritual and their complete and utter lack of impact on the industry, to boldly demonstrate that similar arguments fell flat on their metaphorical faces in the handheld market the second they hit that hellish, terrible continuum known as "reality".

Re:Why consoles, PCs, and smartphones fail (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605271)

similar arguments fell flat on their metaphorical faces in the handheld market the second they hit that hellish, terrible continuum known as "reality"

So for which platform should an indie game developer release a game that supports multiple gamepads or a mobile game in a genre that works best with a gamepad? Or must one pay one's dues by moving to Austin, Boston, or Seattle and working for someone else for ten years first?

Re:Why consoles, PCs, and smartphones fail (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605545)

Any of the above. But like GP said, just don't expect it to have any impact on the industry.

Re:Why consoles, PCs, and smartphones fail (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605333)

most people will just get the apple TV and iCrap of their choice then. lots of games in the app store unless you want an emulator to play old games

That's expensive (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605581)

The problem with "apple TV and iCrap of their choice" is that it's far more expensive. You need an iPod touch ($200) to run the game, an iControlPad ($62) to control it, and an Apple TV ($100) to display it on the television. Without an iControlPad, you can't feel where your fingers are relative to the buttons. And I'm not even sure iOS supports more than one gamepad for multiplayer.

Re:Why consoles, PCs, and smartphones fail (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605949)

Say you have friends over, and they didn't all happen to bring gaming laptops and copies of the same game. In this case, games that run on something connected to your TV are a better choice for multiplayer than most PC games because most PC games don't support multiple gamepads.

I have a device, made by Microsoft no less, that allows me to connect 4 wireless Xbox 360 controllers to my PC. It sells with 1 controller for $41 from Amazon [amazon.com] , which is $2 more than the same controller [amazon.com] sells for alone.

Re:Won't happen (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605239)

$99 price point will never cover any real marketing cost so this is a niche geek product at best

At $99 the hardware will be pretty lackluster, probably a dual-core system with Mali 400 or similar with 1GB RAM and 2GB flash storage. That simply makes the system way, way too restricted for actual console-quality games, you just can't fit tens of gigabytes of content in 2 to 4 gigabytes of storage, let alone render it all at even PS3-level quality. In other words I agree with you: this is nothing new, this is not revolutionary, and this won't catch on with Average Joes.

Google TV (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604751)

This is just Google TV but without the deals to stream from the major streaming sites.

Or, the Phantom 2.0.

Every droid device pretty much has a HDMI port out, so if you have a phone or a tablet you don't need this. I've been playing GTA3 over again on my droid, on the big TV.

They already have the funding... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40604757)

It was at $50,000.00 this morning. As of 5 minutes ago, they had $485,000.00. I'm guessing this will be funded in 3... 2.... 1... DING! Funded!

Hackable? (0)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604831)

I don't get it. What kind of modifications would you want to make to such a device?

Re:Hackable? (3, Funny)

hesiod (111176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605213)

Racing stripes, a spoiler, maybe cut a hole in the side and add an LED or two. Water cooling is the next step after that.

Re:Hackable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605553)

That's right, you don't get it. You can have your own kernel, custom Androids like CyanogenMod, alternative boot OSes, boot into a Linux HTPC like XMBC, reboot back into standard Android. Just because you aren't a technical tinkerer, doesn't mean many many others aren't. People who will enjoy themselves doing whatever the hell they like with a cheap bit of hardware that gives them options and isn't trying to lock them into a single vendor revenue stream.

Re:Hackable? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605823)

I don't get it. What kind of modifications would you want to make to such a device?

The device will probably come with a controller-and-idiot-friendly interface, and you will probably want to load a more standard Android on it if you are a nerd. Everyone else will just want to use it. You will also want to know that you will be able to use it for other purposes in the future. For example, one of the best things about the original Xbox was being able to use it as a pretty credible media player long after new games of note were being released.

a simple prediction: (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40604865)

It will die on the vine, or be a dismal flop.

Reasons:

Lack of quality game titles.

A quality game requires a higher pricing point. Perhaps not the collusion based MSRP of 60$, but definately more than 99 cents. Further, the openness of the console will permit cheats and hacks, which are known to be deleterious to online game communities.

Underpowered hardware (comparably.)

The console will be more anemic than even the wii is. A Tegra based system is chumpchange compared to what's inside CURRENT gen consoles, let along a next-gen lineup. It will be a real hard sell, and even then will be the generic also-ran offering. A simple software tweak, and those nextgen consoles would be able to more than emulate the proper environment for the android console's titles, and since the android box's specs are to be open, there's shit all that could be done about it.

No, an open android console would likely sink like a lead brick.

A better solution would be to make rival game marketplaces for existing consoles.

Episodic gaming like a TV series (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605081)

A quality game requires a higher pricing point.

I agree, and one possible compromise between 99 cent games and $60 games is to split a game into 45-minute episodes (like a TV series) and sell each for a buck or two (also like a TV series).

The console will be more anemic than even the wii is.

Wii's AMD Hollywood GPU is roughly comparable in fillrate to a Radeon 9000, and the Xenos in the Xbox 360 is like a Radeon X1900. Which GPU on Tom's chart [tomshardware.com] comes closest to the specs of a Tegra 3?

A simple software tweak, and those nextgen consoles would be able to more than emulate the proper environment for the android console's titles

But the console makers probably won't choose to emulate Android because if they did, Android titles would compete with native disc and download titles.

Re:Episodic gaming like a TV series (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605911)

I agree, and one possible compromise between 99 cent games and $60 games is to split a game into 45-minute episodes (like a TV series) and sell each for a buck or two (also like a TV series).

This is a bizarre conclusion. Simple math tells us that the obvious compromise between a $0.99 game and $60 game is $7.7 game. Why would you change the format rather than the price?

Was just a matter of time. (2)

Shados (741919) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605001)

Right now take a transformer prime, plug it with a 3 bucks HDMI cable to your TV, and use any xbox 360 controller that would work with a PC (wifi or wired, both will work, but for wifi you need that PC adapter thing), load up Sonic 4, Showgun or whatever and you're there, albeit at a vastly higher price point than even a normal console because, well, its a full feature tablet.

Not surprised someone would cut cost by removing the screen/battery/etc and call it a day.

Pledged $100 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605173)

I am pretty excited about this project. Sure, its a niche, and it won't have as much to offer at the start as any established console, but I was having a hard time choosing between getting an android for home brew or an Iphone (Not an apple fan boy, i just have no soul). I can't develop for an iphone because I don't own a macbook, nor do I have any intentions of buying one. This is an affordable alternative, and is much more powerful than an android phone.

Re:Pledged $100 (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605389)

You can pick up a factory refurb apple dev kit (aka mac mini) for $519+$99/year. For the price of a macbook you could buy 2 dev machines, and a dev license for 10 years.

Right (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605229)

Having been through the Phantom [wikipedia.org] , I'll believe it when I see it.

Having stolen games all my life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605313)

This underpowered console isn't very attractive to me. It's like buying a DVD player that only plays indie and art house films.

Sometimes I want to get drunk and watch Crank 1/2 dammit!

D.O.A. (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605331)

The device 'will allow developers to easily create and sell their games and be fully ''hackable'' --- anyone will be able to pull the machine apart and tinker with it to their heart's content.'

The gamer simply wants to play games.

The console maker offers a broad range of services and a clearly name-branded console-oriented community of gamers and other users.

The purchase of a Wii comes with a different set of expectations then the PS3 or XBox 360.

But console gaming has always been meat-space, couch-friendly, social. That is not the Android market.

PC and console gaming is cyclical: what is hot today is cold tomorrow.

That is true in both hardware and software.

You can see this in the listings at Gog.com --- an overview of 25 years of PC gaming. In the Humble Bundle. I think I have had my fill of the Indie physics-based platformer.

There is a risk in trying to emulate the success of the last generation entry-level hardware product. There is a risk that "casual gaming" tablet-style will prove just as ephemeral as every other genre and platform. The geek who has been whining about Metro should have been the first to pick up on that.

$60 games (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605391)

I don't get $60 games. Just wait a while, and the majority of them end up coming down to around $20, new.

Re:$60 games (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605843)

If you want the full multiplayer experience for a multiplayer game, it makes some sense to buy it right away. Or if you just can't wait, I get the idea. I've bought a few games new at full price over the years; the last one was GTA IV and the next one will probably be GTA V, if it ever @#$%$@# comes out.

AAA games for $0.99? (1)

BackwardPawn (1356049) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605427)

While I'll be the first to admit I hate paying $60 for a game (and usually wait for the price to fall), I don't see how you can make quality games for $0.99. Angry Birds is something I play while waiting for my food to arrive. It passes the time. Dead Space is something I play because its damn fun. No way you'll get a Dead Space quality game for that cheap and there are much better uses for a plasma screen than flinging birds at pigs.

They don't get it then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605533)

A games console is not about the hardware any more (not for a while now), it is all about the content on it.
Multi-platform titles are needed, but the exclusive content that is beyond most studios to finance are what drive console sales.
(cue Halo, Mario, Uncharted etc etc).

well, that and peer pressure.

End of endless sequels and movie tie-ins?? (2)

aussiedood (577993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605625)

Not bloody likely! Angry Birds is testament to that.

Sounds boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605673)

I prefer to play the $60 games because they offer several hours, weeks, even months of gameplay.

The $0.99 games, I have never bought one in my lifetime. The few I've played (gifts) I've enjoyed for an hour or two, and then been bored. I want more from my games.

Can you say Phantom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605761)

I knew you could.

End to DLC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40605945)

With $0.99 games, there will definitely be DLC. I don't mind $60 games if everything's included and it's a polished high production value game.

The new Atari 2600? (1)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 2 years ago | (#40605971)

I can't wait to play Combat or Air-Sea Battle on this thing.

I hear they are rushing to get Pacman and E.T. out before Christmas 2013, too!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>