OUYA: A $99 Android console meant to open up console gaming

[DaMonz]

The filter is the cost of a devkit. With the Ouya this cost has been lowered significantly.

I don't think filtering the games is a good solution. I think they should simply promote games that are actually interesting, instead of promoting stupid games that get boring after 2 minutes.

[Toadofsky]

I don't think filtering the games is a good solution. I think they should simply promote games that are actually interesting, instead of promoting stupid games that get boring after 2 minutes.

If only the app stores would do this

[The Derrit]

Those shovelware games for Wii mentioned by Derrit... Perfect example actually, so no idea why he mentioned the Wii. Wii had the standard "You have to buy Devkit, you have to have publisher, you have to pay X tons of money" etc

the wii had so much shovelware because the install base was so insanely high that publishers knew that even the shittiest of games would get bought a few times. putting together a bad development team, not paying them very much, and putting out a game would still in many cases turn a profit. the iOS and android market are similar but different: because the install base is literally everyone with a smartphone, and the barrier to entry is so low, people are willing to make games on the off chance it blows up, as well as for experience or pleasure.

for the ouya, there is a small install base, zero cost to entry in terms of licensing fees, and significant amounts of shovelware or just downright bad games. anyone who can make games for a larger market will, and the 12 developers that can but are making games for ouya anyways are pretty disgusted about ouya's business practices.

Edited September 14, 2013 by The Derrit

[Crowbar Man]

Well, again I have to state shovelware and bad games can be found on any platform. Every platform ever created has its fair share of garbage. There is no "filter for well designed games" as you mentioned.

A low barrier (both for developer and consumer) console is still a nice idea. There is still a possibility Ouya can pick up some steam. They've amazingly gotten this far when a lot of people were convinced they were just a scam when they first announced it. They not only got the hardware design completed & manufactured, they even have them out in stores. They just need to start making some better decisions to pick up traction.

Even if Ouya fails (too early to tell), the idea has at the very least started the "MicroConsole" "race", (again with even Sony possibly making an entry). And the next gen consoles have slightly lowered the barrier for entry to boot, so its a good time for indies no matter which platform your working on

Still hoping for the tiny box that could to pull through though. Its far too early in the game to count them out.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Crowbar Man

[The Derrit]

Well, again I have to state shovelware and bad games can be found on any platform. Every platform ever created has its fair share of garbage.

the difference is for every other console ever (except mobile platforms) making bad games had a tangible monetary upside. for ouya it doesn't.

i never said it wasn't a nice idea in terms of theory. it just *is* a bad idea

it's like opening up the Louvre to crayon drawings from 5 year olds, the abundance of bad devalues what little good there is to begin with

[Crowbar Man]

the difference is for every other console ever (except mobile platforms) making bad games had a tangible monetary upside. for ouya it doesn't.

wait, if there is no monetary gain for making bad games, then wouldn't that mean less bad games?

Also, you're kinda insulting indies as a whole with the whole "crayon drawing from 5 year olds."

And it wasn't a bad idea when Apple decided to open their phone to development. Wasn't a bad idea when Google did as well. And if its such a bad idea, why are all the big guys lowering the barrier a bit this generation? The only difference is this is a small company that needs to earn its place. They've come pretty darn far. They just need to make better decisions, this Free the Games thing isn't turning out well unfortunately.

As mentioned, its still early, there is still a lot of games coming out with an Ouya version in tow. If people weren't so horribly happy to see them struggle they'd probably be in a better place. Never understood all the hate and negativity that this tiny box spawned and continuously gets.

The only real danger to Ouya is if someone else does the same thing. Sony (VitaTV), Apple (make Apple TV a console too), Google (Make Google TV a console too), etc

Edited September 14, 2013 by Crowbar Man

[The Derrit]

wait, if there is no monetary gain for making bad games, then wouldn't that mean less bad games?

no because there's also no tangible monetary cost, the only cost is man work hours

Also, you're kinda insulting indies as a whole with the whole "crayon drawing from 5 year olds."

it would be, if i said that indies were equivalent to crayon drawings from 5 year olds. but i didn't soooooo

And it wasn't a bad idea when Apple decided to open their phone to development. Wasn't a bad idea when Google did as well. And if its such a bad idea, why are all the big guys lowering the barrier a bit this generation? The only difference is this is a small company that needs to earn its place. They've come pretty darn far. They just need to make better decisions, this Free the Games thing isn't turning out well unfortunately.

i don't know how many more times i can talk to you about what install bases mean

people who can develop for larger audiences, do. up until recently, those who were working semi-professionally/indie/whatever and were talented could find a publisher. due to some tangled up situations that's no longer necessary. people who still don't have the acumen to release on larger networks like steam or consoles either a) self-publish online self-publish on ouya c) self-publish on mobile. a) and c) have massive install bases. does not.

the only people making games SPECIFICALLY FOR OUYA are people who cannot/will not make games anywhere else.

and how far have they come exactly? they put out a system that has sold squat outside of people who paid for it in the kickstarter

As mentioned, its still early, there is still a lot of games coming out with an Ouya version in tow. If people weren't so horribly happy to see them struggle they'd probably be in a better place. Never understood all the hate and negativity that this tiny box spawned and continuously gets.

ouya gives you nothing you don't already get from another platfom with a few notable exceptions. people 'hate' that ouya fanatics act like they 'just don't get it'

The only real danger to Ouya is if someone else does the same thing. Sony (VitaTV), Apple (make Apple TV a console too), Google (Make Google TV a console too), etc

the only danger to ouya is that it makes no money, because publishing games is free, even the best games don't have significant sales numbers, and nobody is buying it.

like i really don't want to hate it but it's only spawned about 10 games total that i would want to play and can't play elsewhere. towerfall, for instance, is a great looking game and if it were on steam it would sell like crazy. but it's on ouya so it sells 2,000 copies instead.

Edited September 14, 2013 by The Derrit

[Crowbar Man]

Install base doesn't happen over night, it takes time, especially for a smaller platform by a smaller company. You are thinking too much on short term. Nobody said it would be success over night. I think they are still doing well for themselves. And hopefully will continue doing well

ouya gives you nothing you don't already get from another platfom with a few notable exceptions. people 'hate' that ouya fanatics act like they 'just don't get it'

It gives indies who don't want the hassle / red tape / expense / publisher agreements (defeating the point of being indie) that are required to put games on a console platform. This is what the Ouya is about, remember? That is its main advantage. Keep in mind, this was in response to the terrible way MS was treating indies, and the insanely high barrier of last generation. This generation the big three have drastically changed their entire setups, and the barrier is now lowered and supposedly much more indie friendly. This is dangerous for Ouya, but great for Indies.

no because there's also no tangible monetary cost, the only cost is man work hours

Oh so in other words, bad games get made no matter what. Kinda like I said. I'm not sure what the point is to these statements because there still is no "Bad Game Filter" on any platform, period. A higher barrier to entry does not mean better products. Just means less little guys and more corporate same ol same ol.

it would be, if i said that indies were equivalent to crayon drawings from 5 year olds. but i didn't soooooo

Who were you referring to then?

the only danger to ouya is that it makes no money, because publishing games is free, even the best games don't have significant sales numbers, and nobody is buying it.

Not really. Depending on how much profit margin there is in the hardware, Ouya could be making money on sales (Can't confirm this for sure). If they for some reason just break even (or worse), Ouya themselves make a percentage of every game sold (And people are buying Ouya games). Until there is a week where 0 units are sold, then units are selling all the time. Just because they don't satisfy whatever impossible figure for a start up numbers you have in your head doesn't mean nobody is buying it.

Its a very slow crawl but it is still a platform people can make things on. Just because its not an instant success overnight doesn't mean its a failure. Especially if the people behind it want to stay in it for the long haul. It will only be a "failure" if the company behind it gives up and closes up shop.

As long as the Indies continue to reach out on more platforms that's all that matters in the end. Whether its Ouya, VitaTV, something from Google/Apple, another microconsole, etc, this idea of a low barrier console will live on no matter what.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Crowbar Man

[Kenogu Labz]

A higher barrier to entry does not mean better products. Just means less little guys and more corporate same ol same ol.

False dilemma.

Who were you referring to then?

You were trying to set up a straw-man. Stop trying to chase it down.

It will only be a "failure" if the company behind it gives up and closes up shop.

Do keep in mind that they can only stay running as long as is feasible. If they don't have the funds to continue creating or supporting it, then they will close up shop. You can only gather momentum for so long. Time is of the essence here.

As long as the Indies continue to reach out on more platforms that's all that matters in the end. Whether its Ouya, VitaTV, something from Google/Apple, another microconsole, etc, this idea of a low barrier console will live on no matter what.

Wait, where is the focus of this discussion? I thought it was the OUYA, not indie developers.

Back to what Derrit was saying about 'install bases': The primary drivers for console sales have always been corporate entities. Big-name developers lay the foundation for a user-base that indie developers can then leverage. The OUYA has no corporate backing whatsoever; there's no guarantee of high-budget content, and few people are going to be willing to fork over for a console that has zero guarantees of ever having more than a few indie gems on it. While a lot of indie games do make it into the spotlight, there are thousands more that simply don't. Commercial games may be predictable, but at least they are stable and predictable and drive sales through channels that indie developers often can not.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Kenogu Labz

[Crowbar Man]

False dilemma.

Not entirely sure what this means?

Wait, where is the focus of this discussion? I thought it was the OUYA, not indie developers.

Referring to the idea of a low barrier to entry console for indies in general being a bad idea, per Derrit.

Do keep in mind that they can only stay running as long as is feasible. If they don't have the funds to continue creating or supporting it, then they will close up shop. You can only gather momentum for so long. Time is of the essence here.

Well, yes? That is what I meant? I didn't mean they would close up shop because they retired or something.

You were trying to set up a straw-man. Stop trying to chase it down.

I'll straw-man you! No idea what you're referring to.

Back to what Derrit was saying about 'install bases': The primary drivers for console sales have always been corporate entities. Big-name developers lay the foundation for a user-base that indie developers can then leverage. The OUYA has no corporate backing whatsoever; there's no guarantee of high-budget content, and few people are going to be willing to fork over for a console that has zero guarantees of ever having more than a few indie gems on it. While a lot of indie games do make it into the spotlight, there are thousands more that simply don't. Commercial games may be predictable, but at least they are stable and predictable and drive sales through channels that indie developers often can not.

Yes lets not challenge the status quo.

Keep in mind mainstream consoles need the high budget games to lure customers because they are $400+ and $60 per game. This console is $99, and games average less than $20 if even that. That is like nothing. They advertise a lot of free to play stuff to. So for those who want lots of indie games, but don't want to shell out $400+ for a new console or hook up a PC in the middle of their living room, the Ouya (or microconsoles in general) is an option. It just needs more quality Indie games, but games take time too.

Overall it is just far too early to tell anything at this point. It has only been out for 3 months in retail.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Crowbar Man

[Kenogu Labz]

Keep in mind mainstream consoles need the high budget games to lure customers because they are $400+ and $60 per game. This console is $99, and games average less than $20 if even that. That is like nothing. They advertise a lot of free to play stuff to. So for those who want lots of indie games, but don't want to shell out $400+ for a new console or hook up a PC in the middle of their living room, the Ouya (or microconsoles in general) is an option. It just needs more quality Indie games, but games take time too.

Oh, I'm not saying it makes sense. But human reasoning doesn't necessarily make sense, either. The theory is nice; the reality is that it simply doesn't work that way.

[Crowbar Man]

Still think people are being far too negative for something that has only been out for 3 months. If they are in the same boat with low sales / no content in say a year or so, then maybe things might not look so good. :/

[The Derrit]

Who were you referring to then?

people who make bad games. how is this hard i've explained it to you 3 times now

Referring to the idea of a low barrier to entry console for indies in general being a bad idea, per Derrit.

and i guess that's still not enough

[Crowbar Man]

Well, I'll repeat, you can't stop people who make bad games. They will just continue to make bad games, period. Doesn't matter the budget, doesn't matter the platform.

That topic has nothing to do with Ouya though, so I don't see the point you're trying to make. Again if you are trying to indicate that having a high barrier to entry somehow guarantees some level of quality that is dead wrong. (See every bad game on any console in all history) It just prevents a quality game from reaching the platform if the developer can't jump through all the hoops and/or afford it.

There is no filter to keep "Bad Games" off any platform.

and i guess that's still not enough

?

Edited September 15, 2013 by Crowbar Man

[Kenogu Labz]

The Android market has no barrier for entry. It is almost impossible to find a game that is good simply by browsing the Google Play store. Try it: pull open the Google Play store and just find something that actually looks playable and is not simply a duplicate or rip-off of an existing game. Nope, couldn't find any here either.

Apple has a barrier for entry. It is much easier to find something that is worth playing on the Apple Store. That's not to say that it doesn't have its fair share of bad apps, but at least a good amount of the low-quality junk is filtered out, which helps enormously in actually finding something worth pursuing.

Those aren't necessarily the sole determining factors, but it is a much bigger problem than you seem to think it is. Discoverability is practically non-existent without a barrier, because anything good can simply be lost in the sheer volume of other junk apps. OUYA's problem is magnified because there are no commercial developers even there to set any sort of externally-imposed quality bar.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Kenogu Labz

[Crowbar Man]

Those are issues all relating the finding good content in a storefront, and isn't any different than consoles. Just like a console, you may have to do research outside of the storefront to tell whats good or not. Even if you sort by ratings systems, its generally easier to go find reviews on the internet than trust finding good content using a search engine. Though since Ouya requires at minimum a free demo, at least you can try before you buy.

Heck, if you just walk into a physical location to buy a game on a console there is literally no information to tell you what is good or not. You have to do research prior otherwise you could pick up complete garbage (for $60 mind you) and have no clue.

BTW: There are several sorting options and "Top" options on the Google Play store, with plenty of good games listed. The problem simply with Android/iOS is since they are more suited for touch devices you get mostly casual games. Depending on your preference, that may be a good or bad thing, but its simply a preference choice. (I'm not a fan of casual games myself) Ouya is thankfully more suited for actual console style games. Still probably better to research first.

Apple does not really have a barrier for entry. The process is very similar to Google Play with some minor differences. Both have a free SDK, both you pay a tiny fee that might as well be nothing ($99/year for AppStore, $25/forever for GooglePlay), both pass a tiny set of rules (which have nothing to do with quality gaming), and you are good.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Crowbar Man

[DarkeSword]

Not really related to Ouya, but Apple does a better job of curating games that are worth playing.

[DaMonz]

The Android market has no barrier for entry. It is almost impossible to find a game that is good simply by browsing the Google Play store. [...]

Apple has a barrier for entry. It is much easier to find something that is worth playing on the Apple Store.

I disagree. I've found plenty of fun games and interesting apps on the android store simply by browsing the Top lists and featured apps. Maybe that's just because our global tastes diverge in some way, but I wouldn't think so.

I don't think having a "barrier for entry" is a good way to filter out "bad" games. In order to run pre-release procedures that filter out bad games (such as with Apple), the publishing company has to spend lots of resources for every single submitted app or game. If you let the filtering be done naturally by using popularity statistics to organize the store, you don't have to filter out "bad" games, because they just won't be put on the forefront and won't bother anyone. So instead of spending large amounts of resources for every single game, the good practice in my opinion would be to focus on having an adaptive store system that automatically ranks games and apps (like the Play Store).

Also,

Those are issues all relating the finding good content in a storefront, and isn't any different than consoles. Just like a console, you may have to do research outside of the storefront to tell whats good or not. Even if you sort by ratings systems, its generally easier to go find reviews on the internet than trust finding good content using a search engine. Though since Ouya requires at minimum a free demo, at least you can try before you buy.

Heck, if you just walk into a physical location to buy a game on a console there is literally no information to tell you what is good or not. You have to do research prior otherwise you could pick up complete garbage (for $60 mind you) and have no clue.

BTW: There are several sorting options and "Top" options on the Google Play store, with plenty of good games listed. The problem simply with Android/iOS is since they are more suited for touch devices you get mostly casual games. Depending on your preference, that may be a good or bad thing, but its simply a preference choice. (I'm not a fan of casual games myself) Ouya is thankfully more suited for actual console style games. Still probably better to research first.

Apple does not really have a barrier for entry. The process is very similar to Google Play with some minor differences. Both have a free SDK, both you pay a tiny fee that might as well be nothing ($99/year for AppStore, $25/forever for GooglePlay), both pass a tiny set of rules (which have nothing to do with quality gaming), and you are good.

Totally agree (especially with the part in bold), except that Apple does have a barrier. It's much simpler to release on Android compared to iOS, because of Apple's pre-release procedures (testing phases and such). Well, last time I checked anyway.

Edited September 15, 2013 by DaMonz

[The Derrit]

I don't think having a "barrier for entry" is a good way to filter out "bad" games. In order to run pre-release procedures that filter out bad games (such as with Apple), the publishing company has to spend lots of resources for every single submitted app or game. If you let the filtering be done naturally by using popularity statistics to organize the store, you don't have to filter out "bad" games, because they just won't be put on the forefront and won't bother anyone. So instead of spending large amounts of resources for every single game, the good practice in my opinion would be to focus on having an adaptive store system that automatically ranks games and apps (like the Play Store).

how exactly do you design that?

the only way is through user feedback, people only rate one star or five stars, and the vast majority of people never rate their applications.

and there DEFINITELY isn't anyone reviewing these games, because they don't matter to very many people at all

[DaMonz]

how exactly do you design that?

the only way is through user feedback, people only rate one star or five stars, and the vast majority of people never rate their applications.

and there DEFINITELY isn't anyone reviewing these games, because they don't matter to very many people at all

User feedback is not the only way, because the number of downloads is also available.

Also, I think the Google Play Store for android is a great example of what I said. It's not that much complicated, it's simply about presenting the right data in the right way. It's also possible to find a happy medium by having automatically sorted lists alongside "Featured" games, or "Staff picks" that are the publisher's favorites, to boost the visibility of specific games. In that case though, I think the publisher has to choose carefully, because putting uninteresting games in the "Featured" section just gives the message that the console really has nothing in store, even if that conclusion is not necessarily true.

I think this is OUYA's biggest problem. When you search long enough in the store, you can find very nice hidden jewels, yet they put games like The Amazing Frog and No Brakes Valet in the featured games (which in my opinion are some of the least polished games I've ever seen).

[zircon]

No Brakes Valet and Amazing Frog are also absolutely hilarious.

[DaMonz]

No Brakes Valet and Amazing Frog are also absolutely hilarious.

Well yeah, but honestly I got bored after like 2 minutes. I don't think that's the kind of game that deserves a front page. Well, not in their current state.

Maybe it's just me though.

[The Derrit]

User feedback is not the only way, because the number of downloads is also available.

Also, I think the Google Play Store for android is a great example of what I said. It's not that much complicated, it's simply about presenting the right data in the right way. It's also possible to find a happy medium by having automatically sorted lists alongside "Featured" games, or "Staff picks" that are the publisher's favorites, to boost the visibility of specific games. In that case though, I think the publisher has to choose carefully, because putting uninteresting games in the "Featured" section just gives the message that the console really has nothing in store, even if that conclusion is not necessarily true.

I think this is OUYA's biggest problem. When you search long enough in the store, you can find very nice hidden jewels, yet they put games like The Amazing Frog and No Brakes Valet in the featured games (which in my opinion are some of the least polished games I've ever seen).

a) there are no publishers

number of downloads has very little correlation to regards to whether or not a game is good

c) if the best option for finding games lies at the hands of the consolemaker i really don't see how that's any less bureaucratic than the current system that people are supposedly 'spurning' in favor of the open freedom of the ouya

you may notice in c) that this all loops back around to the beginning, which is "why was this a good idea in the first place?"

[Crowbar Man]

if the best option for finding games lies at the hands of the consolemaker i really don't see how that's any less bureaucratic than the current system that people are supposedly 'spurning' in favor of the open freedom of the ouya

you may notice in c) that this all loops back around to the beginning, which is "why was this a good idea in the first place?"

Kinda confused about these statements. Console manufacturers do not keep bad games off their console/storefronts (and they definitely don't curate physical locations). As long as someone pays them licensing fees, they will give them a license.

Sorting properly in a storefront is a completely different discussion over whether a game is put on a platform or not.

Totally agree (especially with the part in bold), except that Apple does have a barrier. It's much simpler to release on Android compared to iOS, because of Apple's pre-release procedures (testing phases and such). Well, last time I checked anyway.

As far as I am aware they are very similar to each other. A very small application process (they just make sure the program runs and doesn't explode your phone) and your app is published. I don't see how that is a barrier at all

Edited September 15, 2013 by Crowbar Man

[DaMonz]

a) there are no publishers

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant OUYA in our case.

number of downloads has very little correlation to regards to whether or not a game is good

I think that is very debatable.

And I don't understand your c) point. If the consolemaker controls the store display instead of filtering the games before their release, isn't the end result quite the same? Or are you suggesting that even filtering the games that can be released wouldn't be enough?

EDIT:

As far as I am aware they are virtually the same. A very small application process (they just make sure the program runs and doesn't explode your phone) and your app is published. I don't see how that is a barrier.

Oh, well maybe I misunderstood Apple's procedures. When I looked into it, it seemed much more restrictive and complicated than Google's procedures.

Edited September 15, 2013 by DaMonz