Another new Android console...

This could actually carve out a unique market for it's self. It does not need to drive it's own display, so it would have longer battery life if used with a battery for portability (say car/camping/holiday etc), unlike a phone. You can also take it around a mates house easily. It's the kind of thing I'd of thought Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft/Apple would aim for. Why? Because once, out of all of history, it actually looks like they can fit enough power in that form factor to not be totally obsolete in content. (IE, you could get similar for ages, but it was a C64 power when N64 was around, or Sega Megadrive power when the Xbox was around).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave L.

The problem with the Wii was that while Nintendo made money hand over fist with it, nobody else did. And it actually broke a few companies because while it had a massive install base, for 75% of them the Wii was the thing that you played Wii Sports on, and nothing else. But quite a few companies still spent far too much money trying to make some sort of killer app that the entire install base would buy.

---

Right. Yeah. There's a lovely debate to be had around how and why that happened but pertinently, if the Wii had nothing else ever other than WiiSports, that's still one more thing it's got going for it than the Android consoles in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechnicalBen

...so it would have longer battery life if used with a battery for portability (say car/camping/holiday etc), unlike a phone.

---

Okay... and what of the battery powering the other display?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobF

Mmmf. Kind of but sort of no. Bear with me on this one, I'll probably be covering some gone over ground and I'm not really disagreeing with the general points, just riffing from here. Like, the Wii didn't really compete with the other consoles and this is partly why it sold hand over fist. It is entirely possible to be a box that goes alongside or under the television without competing with the other things that go alongside or under the television and if (and I don't think they will be, to be fair) the Ouya and this are smart, they won't be vying for the same money, the same attention and the same videogames.

---

Actually, the Wii really did compete with the PS3 and XBOX. It just failed horribly. Most of the AAA super high budget games got ported to it, but they either played like ass or were so cut down nobody wanted them. If memory serves, Dead Rising for the Wii only supports a few zombies on screen at once. Yeah...

But the Wii got lucky with its gimmick of motion control. And almost all the success stories for it are party games that use that, or first-party Nintendo franchises that people suffer through the motion controls to enjoy. So it did compete, it just failed horribly at the joust while managing to do halfway decent with the sword. As it were.

Quote:

---

Because people are smart and they realise that different devices serve different purposes or different software catalogues attract different people and they do buy hardware that co-exists.

---

And I agree with this. BUt when something markets itself as a console, it competes with the consoles :p

Quote:

---

And the thing is, just because it's running Android doesn't mean they have to even have anything to do with phones or tablets. It's an operating system. The hardware isn't going to rival the 360/PS3 or whatever for a while, not at the prices they're building for anyway but they could carve out a device which aimed for something, anything different and promote it as easy to build for -because- it's Android and forget about all the phone games that are already available because what about them?

---

Pretty much. That's why I originally suggested someone just make a low-class gaming worthy linux mini-PC. Then began the war :p

But yeah, rest is spot on

On the topic of why someone would want to take the 'mobile' out of "mobile" games - there are 2 solid reasons

1 - because a lot of people play games on their 'mobiles' in their own home - I know this because most of the people I know lose their phones because they were playing games on them (often with the sound turned down) and the battery died/they put it down somewhere a LOST IT :)

2 - because the sort of games which are becoming successful on 'mobiles' are not particularly 'mobile'. I alluded to this earlier, the quickfire we all assumed would make great 'mobile' games have generally not been successful with much weightier and less 'mobile suitable' games becoming successful in their wake - tablets have also encouraged games which are, frankly, almost unplayable on 'mobiles' anyway.

There is another factor but I'm separating it because it's so contentious. That factor is cost...

Retail 360/PS3/Wii/WII-U/DS/3DS/PSP games cost upto £45 - certainly £15+

A 'mobile' game costs from 69p upwards - a few pricey ones approach £10 (tho they're discounted well under that often enough)

Not only is there a massive different in 'apparent' cost to a new customer, but there's almost no overlap. In fact, the only 'overlap' outside of seasonal sales are the "indie" digital downloads on the trad. console platforms and PC - a market almost entirely created off the back of the threat of Mobile Appstores...

So you have millions of cheap games and loads of people who play/want to play them - why wouldn't you make a "console".

Note here we're using 'console' as "cheap, screenless mobile/tablet" rather than 'rival to other consoles".

I enjoyed the Wii for the games you could not get on the other consoles. The wii was a waggle wand the first year (other than Wii Sports), but there are some games that use it well. The Wii MotionPlus came out, but at that point most developers did not wish to invest into in and few games used it. Only 5 games require it, then a bunch of sport games have it optional it seems. I never tried the PS3 Wand, which also seem to dead end fast. Kinect has other uses with the mic and camera, but other than Dance Central there really has no big hit with it. Trauma Center, No More Heroes, Metroid Prime, Resident Evil rail shooter, RE4 are a few examples that use it well (that is not a sports, dance or exercise game).
Then there are a lot of great games that don't even use it.

A lot of the good Android games are touch based. How the hell you going to play Cut the Rope, Where's My Water with a controller. There is still a decent library of games that work with controllers but lots of people will be looking for the big popular ones and will find out on their own accord they are touch only. And only can be touch.

If new games come out for this and are not released on phones, I doubt they will sell for ~$1 each. The market is to small and niche for you to make anything on it selling for that cheap. They will have to design it for both touch and controller, making compromises and making the game less mobile friendly or focus on the console only and sell it for $5+.

The big thing lots will use this for is to Emulators. Android has a few decent ones out there. Good alternative if you do not have your PC near your TV. I could see using it for that. Suppose my netbook would be good for that with a PS3 controller hmmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trjp

Also - you bring up Linux so I have to say it - Linux is dead as a client-side platform, it will NEVER succeed in that market and no-one with any sense would even try. People have been whining about it for as long as I can remember and yet what exists for people is SHIT - pointless/quirky/clanky SHIT - I think we should let it die (as a client platform) gracefully, it's ONLY advantage over anything else is that it's free - that's it, everything else it does (as a client platform) is crap.

---

...android is based on the Linux kernel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickygor

...android is based on the Linux kernel.

---

Which means what? I've specifically talked about Linux as a client platform which Android isn't in any way so...

And Mac OS is based on Unix...

It plays games! Oh myyyyyyyy...

Its like Valve is already 3/5 to Linux...They got the n i and x.

Removing the need to plug in the console adds to portability. Granted, this device will become obsolete with Wifi enabled phones tethered to TVs, but it is at least a device that comes without the "phone" part (thus expense/contract etc).
For example, if camping and you have a battery powered TV or one hooked into the car, which is easier, using this little HDMI device (self powered) or using it and finding a spare plug socket? What about if your on holiday, brought the adapters? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gundato

Actually, the Wii really did compete with the PS3 and XBOX. It just failed horribly. Most of the AAA super high budget games got ported to it, but they either played like ass or were so cut down nobody wanted them. If memory serves, Dead Rising for the Wii only supports a few zombies on screen at once. Yeah...

---

That's more a failure of the studio system than the Wii trying to compete. No-one forced the publishers hands to follow the late-stage PS2 route to product, that was a choice they made themselves. I doubt any of the publishers of such tatware genuinely expected you to buy the Wii version over the HD versions. Which, to sort of bring this to a non-Wii relevancy, is why courting that sort of product explicitly is tremendously dumb because as you say, the experience gets fucked down the line.

Quote:

---

But the Wii got lucky with its gimmick of motion control.

---

Oh come on, it's 2013. We've got past the idea that motion control is/was a gimmick and Ninty "got lucky", surely? Alternate control method that people afraid of a joypad can cope with is far from "a gimmick" and far from "luck". It was a risk but an incredibly calculated and smart one and certainly not something people suffered through the controls to enjoy. They just enjoyed them. Anyway, the always great Ian Bogost's fantastic look on Ninty strategy from the 80's to the WiiU is always worth a read. It's long but razor sharp in observation.

Also probably something the Gamestick/Ouya people should become intimate with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobF

That's more a failure of the studio system than the Wii trying to compete. No-one forced the publishers hands to follow the late-stage PS2 route to product, that was a choice they made themselves. I doubt any of the publishers of such tatware genuinely expected you to buy the Wii version over the HD versions. Which, to sort of bring this to a non-Wii relevancy, is why courting that sort of product explicitly is tremendously dumb because as you say, the experience gets fucked down the line.



Oh come on, it's 2013. We've got past the idea that motion control is/was a gimmick and Ninty "got lucky", surely? Alternate control method that people afraid of a joypad can cope with is far from "a gimmick" and far from "luck". It was a risk but an incredibly calculated and smart one and certainly not something people suffered through the controls to enjoy. They just enjoyed them. Anyway, the always great Ian Bogost's fantastic look on Ninty strategy from the 80's to the WiiU is always worth a read. It's long but razor sharp in observation.

Also probably something the Gamestick/Ouya people should become intimate with.

---

I'll take a look at that when I have more time, but of the games that really sold well on the Wii, I would wager money they were all either motion control party games or franchise titles from Nintendo. So yeah, Nintendo really got lucky with that gimmick. (Un)fortunately, the other two guys adopted it as well, so the Wii U is kind of boned on that front.

But there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of a gimmick. I got my PS3 because of MGS4 and God of War 3, but my sister got hers because it was a blu-ray player, and I imagine a good many PS3 sales boiled down to "It is a blu-ray player". It was a smart move and a gimmick that definitely let Sony maintain their dominance (360 and PS3 are basically even these days from what I can tell, which is great since the PS3 doesn't really have any big named exclusives that even "non-gamers" know and love, like Halo).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trjp

1 - because a lot of people play games on their 'mobiles' in their own home

---

That's not a reason at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trjp

2 - because the sort of games which are becoming successful on 'mobiles' are not particularly 'mobile'.

---

A tablet is still a mobile device, and most of them do play well on mobile devices. Doom doesn't, but nobody's really playing Doom on their phone, they're playing Angry Birds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trjp

There is another factor but I'm separating it because it's so contentious. That factor is cost...

---

Except cost isn't really a factor here since we're talking about the same games at presumably the same price, with the difference being that one can be taken anywhere while the other is tethered to a TV. You've yet to demonstrate what the Ouya does well. Look, I have no doubt that some people will buy the Ouya... just like some people bought the Dreamcast. But I don't see how it's going to be a major success... and no, deciding to define "success" as "breaking even" or "making a little extra money" doesn't change my argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobF

That's more a failure of the studio system than the Wii trying to compete.

---

True to an extent, but I half agree with Gundato that the Wii's strong point was the "gimmick" of motion controls, though I don't know if I totally agree that it's a gimmick. The Wii was an underpowered console that should never have received the ports that it did - I agree with you that Nintendo's design of the Wii had nothing to do with that, and that it was the fault of publishers being idiots. The strong point of the Wii was always in its motion controls, and anything that didn't keep that in mind first and foremost was simply barking up the wrong tree.

However a comparison is unavoidable since the Wii was part of the same "generation" (to use a loose term here) as the 360 and the PS3. It caters to a different market, but being of the same time period it's not invalid to highlight a few points. The hardware was fairly weak compared to the others, but I'd agree that it didn't really matter too much (when devs were catering to the system's actual market). But it did attract an obscene amount of shovelware with pointless minigame compilations, like devs didn't really know what to do with it. Again I agree that it's not the fault of Nintendo, but the Wii didn't have many tricks outside of motion controls, and it probably hurt it in the eyes of some gamers. Of course the general market for the Wii didn't give a flying fig because they just wanted Wii Fit and whatnot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobF

Anyway, the always great Ian Bogost's fantastic look on Ninty strategy from the 80's to the WiiU is always worth a read. It's long but razor sharp in observation.

---

I skipped the chance to read it when it was making the rounds on Twitter, but picked it up on your suggestion. The first couple pages are interesting, but the second half?

"It's lurid and beautiful and repugnant and real, like watching Mickey Mouse smoke a joint in the alley behind Space Mountain."

saves me the effort of thinking of an explanation why I don't like Bogost.

Hah, fair enough. I sort of glaze over stuff like that because I read (and write) far worse on a daily basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soldant

True to an extent, but I half agree with Gundato that the Wii's strong point was the "gimmick" of motion controls, though I don't know if I totally agree that it's a gimmick. The Wii was an underpowered console that should never have received the ports that it did - I agree with you that Nintendo's design of the Wii had nothing to do with that, and that it was the fault of publishers being idiots. The strong point of the Wii was always in its motion controls, and anything that didn't keep that in mind first and foremost was simply barking up the wrong tree.

However a comparison is unavoidable since the Wii was part of the same "generation" (to use a loose term here) as the 360 and the PS3. It caters to a different market, but being of the same time period it's not invalid to highlight a few points. The hardware was fairly weak compared to the others, but I'd agree that it didn't really matter too much (when devs were catering to the system's actual market). But it did attract an obscene amount of shovelware with pointless minigame compilations, like devs didn't really know what to do with it. Again I agree that it's not the fault of Nintendo, but the Wii didn't have many tricks outside of motion controls, and it probably hurt it in the eyes of some gamers. Of course the general market for the Wii didn't give a flying fig because they just wanted Wii Fit and whatnot.

---

Yeah, I pretty much agree there. Also fair enough, yeah, there's valuable comparisons to be drawn starting from it launched this generation also and completely agree that it's not invalid to highlight stuff either.

I find it fascinating how almost desperately the press want Nintendo to be actually really competing though. It's like they really don't get that they've been sidestepped and struggle to accept that yes, Nintendo can sell machines just for Wii Fit/Sports, they can make handhelds parents feel more comfortable giving their kids than an iThing and in the WiiU, a device that's a company putting hardware out to sustain themselves, putting hardware out to continue to redefine the living room/tv as focus but also sitting back and saying "nah, you go first" to MS and Sony.

Which now I put it down like that, maybe these things are competing. Not with all consoles but with the Wii because that's the cheap casual hardware mindshare stuff that along with Apple/Kindles and the cheap 'droid Tabs they will be competing with if they can raise their head high enough to get anyone to even notice in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechnicalBen

For example, if camping and you have a battery powered TV or one hooked into the car, which is easier, using this little HDMI device (self powered) or using it and finding a spare plug socket? What about if your on holiday, brought the adapters? :P

---

Why would anybody bring a TV and a console when camping or on holiday?!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soldant

A tablet is still a mobile device, and most of them do play well on mobile devices. Doom doesn't, but nobody's really playing Doom on their phone, they're playing Angry Birds.

---

Tablets are no more 'mobile devices' than laptops really - "mobile" gaming to me is upto 5" screens (Galaxy Note) - anything which needs a bigger screen is, effectively, not a mobile game in my eyes - it would work on a laptop or a desktop or a TV just as well (better, even!)

Mobility pretty much means touch controls too - hardware keyboards are (rightly) dying out - and the big thing about a 'console' Android is proper controls!

There are many other issues with 'mobility' in games too - games which don't properly support saves (esp common on Android where Apps can be killed at any time by the OS) - games which have mandatory online DRM checks EVERY time you run them and so on.

I picked-up Chaos Rings whilst it was 'cheap' over Xmas and it's a stonking example of a non-mobile title. Every time I access it, it does a file check (and I think an online license check too). The file check - and I own one of the fastest Android devices you can get (an S3) - takes almost 80 seconds to complete - and it runs EVERY time I play the game (because the game uses so much memory, it will always be killed-off by the OS when you leave it!!!)

Quickfire gaming - it takes almost a minute-and-a-half just to START!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobF

I find it fascinating how almost desperately the press want Nintendo to be actually really competing though.

---

Maybe it's an affection for the company that gave us the NES and the SNES. Well, I didn't get either of them, I got a PC instead. And yeah I'm kind of bitter. Um, anyway, the desire for it them to compete might stem from that? I don't know, Nintendo just seem to like doing their own thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobF

Which now I put it down like that, maybe these things are competing.

---

I suppose that's their closest console outside of the tabs like you suggest, but if so it's pretty much game over. Even my dad knows what a WiiU is and keeps asking if they're worth it. He has no idea what a PS3 or a 360 is (computer literate though) but he knows all about the WiiU. If that's who they're going up against... I'd probably quit while I was ahead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trjp

Tablets are no more 'mobile devices' than laptops really...

---

Tablets are not mobile devices? What...?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trjp

Mobility pretty much means touch controls too - hardware keyboards are (rightly) dying out - and the big thing about a 'console' Android is proper controls!

---

Hardware keyboards aren't dying out, I don't know why you think that.

And I don't really understand the relevance of the rest of your post or how the Ouya solves any issues you're raising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by c-Row

Why would anybody bring a TV and a console when camping or on holiday?!?

---

The campig part I don't get, but if I were on holiday I'd expect the hotel I'm staying at to provide an HDTV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mashakos

The campig part I don't get, but if I were on holiday I'd expect the hotel I'm staying at to provide an HDTV.

---

Agreed on the TV, though I apparently stay at the wrong places if I should expect an HDTV from them, but still - bringing your console on a holiday? Isn't the idea of a holiday to get away from your usual routine and do something different for a change?