Another new Android console...

[trjp]

The problem I see is all those games are designed to be played using Touch.

It would make you look less of a berk if you'd read what I posted.

I reckon 75% of games use a control system which could fairly easily be adapted to a controller (and most of those would be BETTER with one!!). When I said "done in an afternoon" I was exaggerating a bit - that said, I put a third-party mobile controller API into one of my games as an experiment and I'd completed it and was playing in about 2 hours.

It's not a big deal - most games operate on the 'up down left right and fire' concept and - as I said - you can get multitouch remotes which will act as a 'touchscreen' remotely anyway.

[trjp]

Isn't PC enough for you people,going from PC games to android is like switching from Ducati 999 to Tomos moped :|

Who said people were switching from anything? It's quite possible to own 2 consoles and, indeed, if I owned both of those machines and commuted 1mile through city traffic I'd be using the moped - anyone would...

[Dave L.]

If either of these sell to a decent degree (an install base of 50-75% of the Xbox or Playstation will be the sweet spot, probably), the big publishers will jump on board. The lure of not having to pay certification fees or go through the certification process will be kind of huge. They'll be able to skimp on QA for the initial launch, and then roll out updates as fast as they care to to address issues that the community is most vocal about.

The hardest part about developing for Android right now is accounting for different specs/screen sizes/API Levels. Ouya and Game Stick will have their hardware locked down (more or less, Ouya seems to want to court hardware tweakers), be running Jelly Bean, and rolling out any Android updates on a set schedule. Different controller APIs will be a problem, but it probably won't be a problem because Ouya will win the Android console fracas, just because it has a better designed controller with an integrated touchpad, which will allow for easier porting of touch based games, and the devkits are already out.

[gundato]

The thing which stands-out most in the this thread is that apparently you 'gamers' look down on these devices and thus assume everyone else will to.

Not really. I am sure most of us have phones we have one or two games for. But just like I don't want "Draw Something" or "Scramble with Friends" on my PS3, I also don't want Far Cry 3 on my phone

Who the people are who are spending millions every day on mobile gaming I've no idea - and you, apparently, don't care - but the makers of these 'consoles' DO care.

And how is a console "mobile"?

Perhaps they're not aimed at you? Did you consider that even for a second??

WHen Ouya is doing false advertising with new releases from devs like Epic and are advertising their support from OnLive, they are aiming at us.

The MOMENT something becomes a "console", it is either competing with the Wii or the XBOX/PS3 (to be fair, the Wii was competing with them too, but it carved out a niche that didn't really overlap until the past year or two).

Maybe they won't last - but that's not the point. Almost everyone who bought a Wii had a whale of a time bowling/throwing/chopping and then put it away for the next party - Nintendo made a fucktonne of money from that alone.

Actually, them not lasting IS a big point when they are asking for money. Which is the point of a KS.

And of my friends who have Wiis: They all agree "Nintendo needs to pull a Sega so that I can play Metroid and Zelda without this piece of crap doorstop"

An Android console isn't competing with an XBOX or a PS3 or a PC - the market is different and yes, it might not actually be worthwhile - but what you, as a PC/console gamer think of it - is largely irrelevant.

WHen Ouya is doing false advertising with new releases from devs like Epic and are advertising their support from OnLive, they are aiming at us.

The MOMENT something becomes a "console", it is either competing with the Wii or the XBOX/PS3 (to be fair, the Wii was competing with them too, but it carved out a niche that didn't really overlap until the past year or two).

Also, if they are marketing it as a console, I think that what console gamers think is pretty god damned relevant. :p


Dude, the only person being irrational is you. Nobody is saying mobile gaming is bad. Just that it is a different market and that making a non-touch-based console that is supposed to cash in on the touch-based mobile market is pretty god damned stupid.

It would make you look less of a berk if you'd read what I posted.

I reckon 75% of games use a control system which could fairly easily be adapted to a controller (and most of those would be BETTER with one!!). When I said "done in an afternoon" I was exaggerating a bit - that said, I put a third-party mobile controller API into one of my games as an experiment and I'd completed it and was playing in about 2 hours.

It's not a big deal - most games operate on the 'up down left right and fire' concept and - as I said - you can get multitouch remotes which will act as a 'touchscreen' remotely anyway.

You still haven't addressed any of the concerns other than "They can magically port it"

1. That involves all those devs actually porting their games. This is in a world where having an android version of a game is actually something to cheer about
2. That involves all those devs deciding to port their game to this specific API, since Ouya will probably have a different one
3. I don't know (or really care) what games you are making, but basically all of the phone games I have played are very touch heavy. I would HATE to play Angry Birds with a gamepad, and I am pretty sure even the Mass Effect game would be awkward with a gamepad unless it was heavily re-designed
4. If we are dependent on all the devs porting their games, what is the benefit of Android over any existing OS? Or even a magical new OS?

Calling someone a "berk" doesn't really prove your point. Proving your point is usually good for that :p

[trjp]

On the 'fragmentation' thing - it's a tired argument used mostly by people who have that irrational affection only Apple can create in their users.

iOS is easily as 'fragmented' - hell Apple just changed the resolution of the iPhone 'for the hell of it'!!

If anything, a popular 'console' based on Android will only improve the situation anyway - giving people something to shoot for.

That said tho, the 'fragmentation' people talk about is as much created by game companies who sign into deals to produce games for specific types of hardware, without realising they're slashing their customer base by upto 90% (Tegra is the main culprit - a Tegra exclusive Android game would be like a Packard Bell exclusive PC release ;) )

The market isn't built on the silly titles which only work on a small % of the hardware - the big winners are the titles which work on almost everything - and it's not THAT hard to do...

[trjp]

Nobody is saying mobile gaming is bad.

Isn't PC enough for you people,going from PC games to android is like switching from Ducati 999 to Tomos moped :|

But if the games are all shite...

Crap/"casual" games, but yeah :p

It really is rude to come into a thread without reading it ;)

[trjp]

I have a bigger question for you all now - you're all acting like this is some sort of threat to you/your hobby - why is that?

Ponder for a moment...

Mobile IS going to harm the "gaming" you love - it already has. It's brought in AppStore pricing and that whole 'race to 99c" mentality.

Companies like Nintendo must have shat several bricks now - who will pay £35 for a remake of a 20-year-old game when there are games all their friends are playing which are maybe £2.99 but probably less??

There's probably a whole generation out there who's thinking "why do I even want a console/PC?" already - and not just for gaming.

Yes, it's a threat - it's actually already happened - in some ways this move to 'TV and proper controller' is a GOOD thing because I don't want to just play games designed for a 3.5" screen either!

[gundato]

It really is rude to come into a thread without reading it ;)

Pretty sure Daft was joking, but grasp at whatever straws you can. you already are clinging pretty tight to them straw men :p

And if you actually read my post (irony!), you would see that I was basically saying "Most games are crap, but there are some gems". Which is true of everything. Which is why someone saying "It can run flash games" doesn't really interest me too much since most flash games are crap

On the 'fragmentation' thing - it's a tired argument used mostly by people who have that irrational affection only Apple can create in their users.

iOS is easily as 'fragmented' - hell Apple just changed the resolution of the iPhone 'for the hell of it'!!

If anything, a popular 'console' based on Android will only improve the situation anyway - giving people something to shoot for.

Just like how every new flagship Adnroid phone makes a new target to shoot for :p

Also, nice insert of an attack there. "You disagree with mje, you are an Apple using loser"

That said tho, the 'fragmentation' people talk about is as much created by game companies who sign into deals to produce games for specific types of hardware, without realising they're slashing their customer base by upto 90% (Tegra is the main culprit - a Tegra exclusive Android game would be like a Packard Bell exclusive PC release ;) )

The market isn't built on the silly titles which only work on a small % of the hardware - the big winners are the titles which work on almost everything - and it's not THAT hard to do...

From my checking of the store, it generally seems that the "gamey" games tend to have this problem because they push the limits of the hardware. Stuff that is a glorified flash game don't have this problem because they are glorified flash games :p

[gundato]

I have a bigger question for you all now - you're all acting like this is some sort of threat to you/your hobby - why is that?

No... We really aren't. If anyone is acting like this is a threat to their way of life, it is the mobile game developer who claims to know better than Valve and wants to dictate how all of gaming should be handled :p

Mobile IS going to harm the "gaming" you love - it already has. It's brought in AppStore pricing and that whole 'race to 99c" mentality.

Discount games and central repositories so I don't have to go to nine hundred different websites? Kickass!

Also, one can easily argue that was the work of Valve and Apple, who both started their campaigns long before smart phones and mobile gaming really became a thing.

Companies like Nintendo must have shat several bricks now - who will pay £35 for a remake of a 20-year-old game when there are games all their friends are playing which are maybe £2.99 but probably less??

So... indie gaming is bad? What is the point here?

There's probably a whole generation out there who's thinking "why do I even want a console/PC?" already - and not just for gaming.

Because they want to sit down and play Call of Duty instead of Words with Friends?

For all the reasons I mentioned the last time you pretended that all PCs are dying and the world is over and everyone should embrace mobile gaming exclusively or whatever straw man you are building to change the subject of: This project is a crap one because of the many reasons already mentioned

Yes, it's a threat - it's actually already happened - in some ways this move to 'TV and proper controller' is a GOOD thing because I don't want to just play games designed for a 3.5" screen either!

So the move away from mobile gaming back to normal gaming? Huzzah! Traditional gaming is dead. Long live traditional gaming!

[TechnicalBen]

It really is rude to come into a thread without reading it ;)

Or you know, contradicting yourself like gundato does (in your quotes).

[soldant]

The thing which stands-out most in the this thread is that apparently you 'gamers' look down on these devices and thus assume everyone else will to. [...] An Android console isn't competing with an XBOX or a PS3 or a PC - the market is different and yes, it might not actually be worthwhile - but what you, as a PC/console gamer think of it - is largely irrelevant.

The point that applies to both this and the Ouya is that they're trying to artificially carve out their own market where it's not even clear that one exists. As others have highlighted porting mobile games to a TV doesn't seem like a particularly good idea - the benefit of mobile games is that they're mobile. Nobody plays Angry Birds on their PC, but everybody does on their phones.

That's the issue I have with the Ouya - it doesn't seem to have any real reason for being there. Yes, it's cheap. Yes, it's not competing with the 360 or PS3. And that's the point - it's competing with mobile phones and tablets despite the fact that it's not portable and that seems like a big mistake. A lot of the excitement is probably around the idea that it might be an indie console but they'll still shoot for Steam or the Xbox Live Arcade. This one linked today looks like a "Me too!" attempt to cash in on something that hasn't even been successful yet.

I have a bigger question for you all now - you're all acting like this is some sort of threat to you/your hobby - why is that?

Nobody here suggests it's a threat. They suggest it just isn't a good idea.

[trjp]

You realise the whole mobile gaming market didn't exist until the iPhone arrived - there were mobile games, of course, but they were unmitigated shit which about 20 people played - the money was in ringtones back then...

Now iOS (and in it's shadow, Android) is one of the biggest gaming markets - developers cannot really ignore it - so it's not surprising that people would look to make use of what spawned from it, is it?

Whether it will 'work' - that depends on your definition of work. They people designing these consoles aren't trying to "win" anything, they just want to sell enough to make a profit - you'd be amazed how little that has to do with your idea of "good games" ;)

[gundato]

You realise the whole mobile gaming market didn't exist until the iPhone arrived - there were mobile games, of course, but they were unmitigated shit which about 20 people played - the money was in ringtones back then...

Now iOS (and in it's shadow, Android) is one of the biggest gaming markets - developers cannot really ignore it - so it's not surprising that people would look to make use of what spawned from it, is it?

Whether it will 'work' - that depends on your definition of work. They people designing these consoles aren't trying to "win" anything, they just want to sell enough to make a profit - you'd be amazed how little that has to do with your idea of "good games" ;)

...

And once again trjp, nobody is denying that. And if that version of whatever your argument is makes you feel happy, go with it.

However, as this was a discussion of the KS and if it was a smart idea to back, it is definitely worth noting all the flaws and the questionable design choices. So maybe they'll sell enough consoles to make a profit (and hopefully the dumbasses who bought in won't feel too bad :p). And even better for them if they can manage to screw over those early adopters while never having a single good game on the platform. But as a gamer, I feel the need to point out all the giant red flags and questionable choices, just as you feel the need to randomly defend cell phone games or whatever.

I would ask you to respond to the points previously raised, but there is no real point. From what I can gather, you felt that we all hated the mobile gaming that you have embraced and decided to scream, make contradictory statements, and launch personal attacks in an attempt to defend it from non-existant attacks. So... good job?

[soldant]

You realise the whole mobile gaming market didn't exist until the iPhone arrived - there were mobile games, of course, but they were unmitigated shit which about 20 people played - the money was in ringtones back then...

Yes, I remember, I was there too... but I'd refer you to the word mobile. MOBILE. These are consoles, they're not mobile! That's why I don't think either one will see significant success - they're basically taking mobile games and taking the "mobile" part out. Why?

Whether it will 'work' - that depends on your definition of work. They people designing these consoles aren't trying to "win" anything, they just want to sell enough to make a profit - you'd be amazed how little that has to do with your idea of "good games" ;)

Oh, I know that they're out to make a profit. The console will only sell well if there are lots of games produced for it. Games will only follow if it gets dev and pub support. They'll only do that if there are people out there to play it. That's the same for any sort of console. But in this case these games already have a market in the mobile sector, so they're basically asking people to stop playing mobile games on a mobile phone or tablet and instead play them on a console.

That is the biggest issue with these things. It's not about threats or "good games" or the fact that mobile games are popular. Well okay maybe it is about that mobile games are popular, but only in that they hope to leverage that to get their console off the ground. It's an apparently pointless addition to the console sector - it's not a mobile device, and it's not a powerful game console, it falls in between and doesn't seem to have a real purpose.

HOWEVER, to play devil's advocate, the same things were said about the iPad - my eloquent uncle criticised it by exclaiming "It's an oversize iPhone except it's not a fucking phone." Three years later we're up to our eyeballs in them. Perhaps the Ouya will do better, but it'll need more than just mobile games to succeed, and I don't know if indies will support it quite that much. As for this Kickstarter proposal? It's even worse.

[RobF]

The MOMENT something becomes a "console", it is either competing with the Wii or the XBOX/PS3 (to be fair, the Wii was competing with them too, but it carved out a niche that didn't really overlap until the past year or two).

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.

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.

But! I think this is totally where the Ouya and this are fucking up because really, who are they talking to? Because this thread covers the biggest mistake they've made at length. They've both focused on Android. Who wants a phone under a TV? Isn't that the first thought when you think of reasons it won't work? Who wants a touch based game on their television? Who wants to watch developers try and botch the controls of their existing touch based games to run on the television? LOOK! ALL THE EXISTING GAMES THAT EXIST CAN BE YOURS. But they'll be shit, obv. Because they're phone games.

And it's like, fucks sake. Idiot companies. You've got nothing. Soldant's got this bang on.

Because the 360 came along and it had massive digital distribution and online gaming under the television. The Wii had family friendly gaming for your grandad who loves to play Wii Sports when his osteoporosis lets him. The PS3 had a really expensive bluray player and lots of updates or something. I don't know. It was an expensive thing. But they all had things. Reasons you might want one other than it's a box under the tele. Maybe it's Wii Sports, maybe it's 400 points for Galaga or maybe it's the chance to wait a month and a half to play a game you bought yesterday or whatever.

So what are they selling really? Ouya were selling to the open console crowd. So that's devs and nerds and no-one else. All the games are free to play. Great, so now you've made an investment banker's predictions for the market come true, what next? Wait, you've sold 60k? Add more zeroes and you're at one single solitary week of Wii sales from launch. The Gamestick has "it's tiny, like". And nearly seven hundred people have gone for it so far. It'll make a thousand by tomorrow, I'm sure. If it's lucky, maybe they'll attract half of the numbers Ouya did. Maybe more people? Still, after that? Good luck. You've got nothing. Plays games and is tiny is like, yeah, great. Plays Android games is like, what about my phone?

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?

But they have to focus on Android, existing titles and the promise of developers porting titles (false promise?) because they've got nothing else. The Pi has covered the bottom dollar experimental market, after that, I can just buy a Wii for £40 now and have access to all the games my kid will want to talk to his mates about, or a 360 or a PS3 for a bit more but still cheap. Sure, they're not tiny but my phone is and I already have a phone so that's OK. And sure, they're not open but what's that to me anyway? I just want to play Call Of Bloomers. And at this point they're competing in kind but they're not really because what's a Gamestick, who's an Ouya? Sorry, you've lost me, can you get pills for that?

The problem isn't really that they're consoles therefor competing. It's that they've got nothing but they're consoles to hang on to.

That said, I'm totally cool with niche hardware existing and I hope they both carve out their own respective corners. Just by existing, people will write stuff for them as mentioned above and that'll be nice. But they're not competing. They just are things. And to be honest, if porting or building stuff for either is fairly trivial, then maybe it'll see some uptake but I struggle to see them as anything but the under the tele equivalent of the stuff Craig's been doing for years with the GP2X and Pandora except these guys have got some money to fulfill orders or something like that. I look forward to the inevitible "hey, it's Doom running on a..." stories and we'll all laugh and stuff and it'll be great.

And if nothing else, at least the Gamestick is honest in its enthusiasm and its intention. So that's something.

[alms]

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.

nope people are just people and they do whatever it please them, if something looks cool they don't ask themselves "what purpose does this serve? will this coexist with my other hardware?", that is for us overthinkers to wonder - they just buy what looks cool, hoping they will look smart and cool, while they look like everyone else, because doing what everyone else does is what looks cool, given enough other people are doing it at the same time, but not too many.

Soldant's got this bang on.

shitterfuck! the maya got the month wrong!

[Moraven]

It would make you look less of a berk if you'd read what I posted.

I reckon 75% of games use a control system which could fairly easily be adapted to a controller (and most of those would be BETTER with one!!). When I said "done in an afternoon" I was exaggerating a bit - that said, I put a third-party mobile controller API into one of my games as an experiment and I'd completed it and was playing in about 2 hours.

It's not a big deal - most games operate on the 'up down left right and fire' concept and - as I said - you can get multitouch remotes which will act as a 'touchscreen' remotely anyway.

And most of those games are typically crappy touch controls. What fun is it if my thumb covers a portion of the screen the entire time. Put it on console and be done with it.

Now if the Ouya gets a good library of controller based games it should do well.

[soldant]

nope people are just people and they do whatever it please them, if something looks cool they don't ask themselves "what purpose does this serve? will this coexist with my other hardware?", that is for us overthinkers to wonder - they just buy what looks cool, hoping they will look smart and cool, while they look like everyone else, because doing what everyone else does is what looks cool, given enough other people are doing it at the same time, but not too many.

Really? I don't disagree that people will buy things that look flashy as status symbols (otherwise how is Apple selling so many goddamn phones), but people definitely do consider utility. The incredibly rich and famous probably don't, but whether or not something has a use does factor into purchases like consoles or technology. They aren't ornaments for aesthetics reasons only, they have an intended purpose and use. I didn't buy my PC because I like the look of it (I don't, but I can't find a suitable mATX case with decent cooling) but because I need it to do things.

[RobF]

Yeah, sorry. I phrased that really badly. I didn't mean that folks buy it specifically, purposefully or consciously to co-exist with their stuff, the stuff fills different needs or wants and ends up coexisting with stuff.

I'm also talking specifically about the console arms race and how Ninty stepped outside of that. They entered deliberately with a comparatively underpowered machine and outsold everything else and their strategy is to not compete with the 360 or the PS3. Hence, just because it's a console doesn't mean that it's in competition...

Or something.

[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.