Jump to content

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


Arcana
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is anyone here actually saying that it won't succeed?

(don't answer for other people thanks)

Failing is the default case for startups. Until I've seen numbers that give me confidence that this will make it to market and be profitable for 3rd parties, I have no reason to believe it will succeed.

I'm yet to see those numbers, so I don't believe it will succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 497
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You are just assuming the numbers Mojang wanted is larger than what they got.

No, that is your interpretation of what I said (which is wrong, considering you explicitly ignored the fact that I said "The latter is debatable").

And again, you are missing the point. Ouya needs sales to survive. If the only people who buy Ouya hardware units are devs, there won't be enough revenue from gamers to keep devs hooked on it. If the only people who buy it are gamers, there'll be no games to make money off of. You can't market something for both people. It is impossible, especially with the fact that Ouya is a start-up. You know why Steam can do it? There's no hardware involved.

The only people who can buy/develop games on Ouya are the people who own the piece of metal itself. So you really haven't changed my mind. They need money, and there's nothing that says they have it yet.

You can't run a successful business off of an idealistic mission statement.

Billy should look into Ouya. It can let him do awesome things too

Billy should go to school and learn that $25 is less than $99.

Edited by Neblix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my interpretation is wrong because its different than yours, but neither of us have facts to prove each other wrong?

The only facts we have is it was on a Kickstarter that met its goal. Mojang didn't give numbers, big or small. 60K / $9 million is pretty big though for a product that isn't even real yet. So whatever, you can interpret it any way you want I guess? You aren't making much sense to me though

The only people who can buy/develop games on Ouya are the people who own the piece of metal itself.

Buy Games: Wow thanks for the obvious.

Develop Games: Wrong. Right now you can technically start developing on the "Ouya" by making an Android product or Unity game. When the SDK comes out, you then convert your project over. The SDK should still be released before the hardware is. If its based off the Android SDK, it has an emulator. Unity, you just have to wait for Unity to sell a Ouya license, then buy it and click the "Make Ouya Version" button. Unity is slow to adopt new licenses sometimes, so it might be best to start elsewhere unless your going multiplatform anyways.

But it is better technically to have the hardware, Emulators don't always act the same as the real thing.

I'm still not entirely sure what your point is though. Obviously when/if it comes out, devs will be buying it to test their products on real hardware?

They need money, and there's nothing that says they have it yet.

Except their deep pocketed friends that Dhsu already pointed out. Again, nobodys know how much money they already set aside to start this project. They obviously did not plan on using the Kickstarter for anything but advertisement, because 950K is too small to start a project this ambitious. NOt even sure why they were allowed to do a kickstarter if they had previous funding.

Regardless, when/if the product comes out, it wont just be a mission statement, it will be a product. If it never comes out, none of this matters?

Ouya needs sales to survive.

This is obvious. Ouya has made 60K sales so far. If they aren't selling it at cost, then they are already making sales as we speak. I'm sure some of those people plan on buying products for their hardware? Controllers, Games. More sales/profit.

Sales numbers will go up when the hardware releases, numbers will go up once more games come out, etc

You can't market something for both people. It is impossible, especially with the fact that Ouya is a start-up. You know why Steam can do it? There's no hardware involved.

Uh, console manufacturers technically sell their business to developers all the time (See gigantically expensive Dev Kits and Licenses per game). The only difference here is the risk is dramatically reduced for both parties with Ouya (well, Ouya is taking a much bigger risk than the devs actually, but no where near as much as MS/Nintendo/Sony does). In fact, as i've mentioned multiple times, depending on the product, it may as well be no risk for some devs.

Also, maybe you havn't seen Android/iOS devices? I've mentioned them or twice. And the fact this is borrowing from their current success models. And even using Android (*sigh*)

Steam doesn't sell hardware, as you said, so why are you saying "they can do it for both (sell hardware)"?

Billy should go to school and learn that $25 is less than $99.

Depends on what kind of programming, no? Game programming would be easier/better on the Ouya obviously.

Honestly, I don't get most of your points.

Edited by Crowbar Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my interpretation is wrong because its different than yours, but neither of us have facts to prove each other wrong?

No, because a decent grasp of the english language doesn't support your interpretation at all. You said I assume Mojang doesn't think they have enough people, I want you to go back and find proof that I said that at all.

This is obvious. Ouya has made 60K sales so far.

What the fuck are you talking about? Ouya hasn't sold anything. We just had this problem with the OCR Kickstarter where people were equating investments to sales ("Why are the CD's $50?!")

You need to look up the definition of "sell", dude.

Steam doesn't sell hardware, as you said, so why are you saying "they can do it for both (sell hardware)"?
You can't market something for both people. It is impossible, especially with the fact that Ouya is a start-up. You know why Steam can do it? There's no hardware involved.
I don't understand what order you read my sentences in. I'm talking about Steam marketing its product/service. Not its hardware. That doesn't have to be stated, it's common sense. Would it make better sense if I stated the obvious: marketing costs money? Do you seriously think the publicity caused by a kickstarter has gotten enough attention for Ouya to say "we don't really need to market this EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT IT NOW"?
Depends on what kind of programming, no? Game programming would be easier/better on the Ouya obviously.

There are far more things you can program than video games.

Far more.

You can't do "amazing things" on Ouya. You can make a game. That's it. You'd have to be dense if you seriously think that Ouya has as much potential in the world wide community of coders as something like Raspberry Pi.

Ridiculously dense.

Seriously dude, I'm fine with you thinking Ouya has a shot with devs, but please stop thinking that Raspberry Pi's success can predict anything about Ouya. They're completely different things.

You don't get my points? I don't get why you're allowed to cite console manufacturer success while crying "guys they're just an indie console!" when someone like Newt brings up a point about how ridiculously expensive console manufacturing can end up. It's ridiculously inconsistent. You're either a niche console that can't survive in the big console market or you're a big console competitor that can be prone to the same failures everyone else is.

If I'm being too confusing, then let me give a tl;dr

I take issue with the fact you think this will succeed based on nothing but ideals.

"There's no reason devs wouldn't" "There's no risk" "They have everyone's support" "It's a great idea" "They met a Kickstarter goal" "They have deep pocketed friends according to me" "Everyone will buy the system"

Uh, console manufacturers technically sell their business to developers all the time (See gigantically expensive Dev Kits and Licenses per game). The only difference here is the risk is dramatically reduced for both parties with Ouya (well, Ouya is taking a much bigger risk than the devs actually, but no where near as much as MS/Nintendo/Sony does). In fact, as i've mentioned multiple times, depending on the product, it may as well be no risk for some devs.

Also, maybe you havn't seen Android/iOS devices? I've mentioned them or twice. And the fact this is borrowing from their current success models. And even using Android (*sigh*)

Success models used by companies with actual track record, resources, and connections?

Also, no dev would ever make an Ouya port without testing it on the system itself. That would just be beyond stupid. They can do it for phones and tablets because they all work the same way.

But the one system that has a controller you make a port for? You don't even test it?

Sure, "free money" if you don't count the cost of testing.

Edited by Neblix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

crowbar i don't understand how you can possibly be this dense. straight up. this is like talking to a wall here. you're arguing imaginary points with neblix and i of what you thought we said, and not listening to the things we did say, while ignoring what ouya has actually publicly said and replacing it with your ideal version of what you think would be nice. this has essentially devolved to us debunking all of your points, and you being like 'i don't get your points, OUYA IS GREAT.' you're repeating yourself over and over because you don't understand the conversation you're in.

i don't have the motivation to do a point by point after your last couple points, but i'll add a few things.

1. a cheap computer is a console whether you like it or not.

2. i don't understand how dense you have to be to imply neblix was saying that steam sells hardware. steam doesn't *need* hardware. for someone who seems to want to make babies with the indie scene this should have been mind numbingly obvious.

See, this is a terribly anti-indie statement, and shallow thinking. Just because you don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars, doesn't mean you are good enough to make a game? Bullshit.

Again, I guess all the developers who make games that aren't on Steam/XBLA/PSN, but may make it self release/Desura/Indievania/freeware/etc on the PC/Mac/Linux/Android/iOS just aren't good enough and shouldn't be making games.

3. no. they should probably stick to doing that until they can afford to move up in the world. or just keep doing that. where is the issue there? is there some inferiority complex in the indie world about not being good enough to develop for a console?

let me take time out before 4 to say the way you draw your conclusions is baffling.

4.on the ouya kickstarter.

1d701166d53cb122109cfeaef93fc3d2_large.png?1341628029

stop trying to say i'm goddamn wrong. you're wrong or ouya's wrong/intentionally lying. there's no way to spin this unless you want to look like a jackass.

Yeah, nobody else does that. pointing at Nintendo

5. yeah too bad you took out the part about 'bringing nothing new to the consumer,' which anyone with an ounce of awareness will tell you they did, in spades, since clearly you're (trying) to talk about the wii. not to mention even nintendo created the custom specifications for their system, ouya's just like 'fuck it throw in a tegra 3 and we're done'

6. splitting up my sentence in two to debate two separate points doesn't work honey buns. that little word 'while' means something. on top of that, there is a cheap console for indie developers to make games on. it's called a computer. and if that doesn't fit 'your' (read: ignorant) definition, what I suggest for someone trying to bring an inexpensive console for indie development is...

DON'T DO IT. there's no future in making a console for a sliver of the gaming market, and the portion of the developing market that doesn't explicitly have to be good at their job. this right here is the only qualification i'll make. THERE ARE PLENTY OF GOOD INDIE DEVELOPERS. but there are plenty more who SUCK ASS and don't need to be able to put their games on a console to prove it.

7. stop talking about 'free ports.' ports are not free. to quote the PA again,

"The OUYA will use a controller when most Android games are designed for the touch screens of phones or tablets, which is a problem. Games are either going to have to be designed from the ground up for the OUYA, or ported from other Android devices that rely on touch screen controls. Unless the hardware sells a few million units very quickly, neither option is going to be attractive to smaller, or even AAA, developers."

8. saying they've made 60k in sales is false. like i already mentioned more than 3/4 of the people who pledged have already paid for their console, and kickstarter is being used to fund the development. so 3/4 of their initial console sales is being developed at no revenue. they've made a *potential* 12 in sales, and 48k in revenue-free console giveaways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neblix:

I have no idea what you are trying to say with the Mojang stuff then. WE both agree the console isn't out (because that is reality). I have no idea what your other point is.

Eh, you can call them not sales if you want. People paid they are selling the machine to get one (or higher). Same thing with preorders, since you pay full price. Maybe by some semantics you can say that is not a sale, but its pretty close to one IMO

I don't understand what order you read my sentences in. I'm talking about Steam marketing its product/service. Not its hardware. That doesn't have to be stated, it's common sense. Would it make better sense if I stated the obvious: marketing costs money? Do you seriously think the publicity caused by a kickstarter has gotten enough attention for Ouya to say "we don't really need to market this EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT IT NOW"?

Well you are switching subjects. Topic was simply about what the device was being marketed as, now you are talking about the cost of marketing itself? That is a completely different subject.

You can't do "amazing things" on Ouya. You can make a game. That's it.

Incorrect. I was going to mention, Raspberry Pi and Arduino are better for hardware prototyping and something more compact in a DIY project, I decided my post was getting too big and cut it out. A mistake I guess. Ouya is still more powerful when it comes to things that need more raw power / RAM. Ouya has already mentioned the device will be "hack friendly", meaning more than likely its boot loader can be changed to make it an ARM linux box. Its not practical for some projects but for like, a media server, media box, general linux server, etc it can still be useful for its power over Arduino/Raspberry Pi. I am just going by what Ouya has said, if they turn on their word, then you are correct. Either way, making games is still important for some people, no?

EDIT: Actually you could take the MB out of the box to reduce the Ouya's size, then the only issue is whether they put any sort of extra pins for hardware interface (probably not), otherwise you'd have to go through USB. Not a giant issue but inconvenient. Also, Ouya has Wifi.

You don't get my points? I don't get why you're allowed to cite console manufacturer success while crying "guys they're just an indie console!" when someone like Newt brings up a point about how ridiculously expensive console manufacturing can end up. It's ridiculously inconsistent. You're either a niche console that can't survive in the big console market or you're a big console competitor that can be prone to the same failures everyone else is.

Maybe you missed every single post where I've pointed how Ouya is doing things differently and on the cheap compared to the big guys? Yes certain things will still need to fall in place, but they are SIMPLE ECONOMICS like "Developers makes games, so console manufactures need to appease and gather devs". These still apply, because it is a game console. I'd like you to point out where I've said something wildly different that conflicts like you are saying I did.

"There's no reason devs wouldn't" "There's no risk" "They have everyone's support" "Everyone will buy the system"

I've given examples of how a dev could put a game with very little risk on the system. If you want me to repeat myself, I can, but I'm just about tired of typing it and it being ignored. It doesn't apply to every dev, but it does in the case scenarios I've point out over and over.

"It's a great idea" "They met a Kickstarter goal" "They have deep pocketed friends according to me"

It is a great idea! IMO at least. They DID meet their Kickstarter goal! (FACT!11) And Dhsu gave the facts about the deep pocketed friends.

"They have everyone's support"

They should, for anybody wanting to support the cause. But its obvious there is a ton of pessimistic people, and people who don't care about Indie scene at all obviously not.

"Everyone will buy the system"

Not something I've ever said? I said quite the opposite.

Also, no dev would ever make an Ouya port without testing it on the system itself. That would just be beyond stupid.

They could start a project, but I stated (in my post you are responding to) it is not a good idea to do anything without testing it on hardware at some point. So agreed? I wasn't sure what your original point was anyways

They can do it for phones and tablets because they all work the same way.

Uh, this isn't true at all. The behavior between Emu and devices can be radically different. Even different phone models can unfortunately behave differently, and tablets by design behave different than phones. I have no idea where you are getting this misinformation. This is why Android developers need to gather feedback (before would be helpful, but definitely after) for different devices in case there are issues. Issues lead to lost sales.

If what you said were the case, you'd be arguing against yourself, because Ouya is an ARM chipset (Tegra 3) running on Android so should technically run the same as a phone/tablet.

But the one system that has a controller you make a port for? You don't even test it?

Sure, "free money" if you don't count the cost of testing.

A controller is just another type of input. It doesn't change the OS/framework. We've had this conversation before. Also, "testing costs" depends on the dev/size of the project. A tiny project can be tested by yourself and/or peers for nothing. Having a testing group is something big name companies do (well, sometimes. and not that it helps if they dont listen to their testers, but thats another story)

You should definately test it on hardware before you release it (incredibly stupid to only use the Emu), but it doesn't mean you can't start development (general prototyping, brainstorming, etc) on it without hardware, which was my point.

The Derritt:

*sigh*. Im going to have to clear an afternoon to respond to that heap of BS. No time now.

Edited by Crowbar Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

crowbar you're just arguing semantics, sidestepping valid points with 'i don't understand' and being like 'weren't you guys listening when i told you it works like this?' when it is clearly documented that whatever you're saying doesn't *actually* work like that. neither neblix or i are saying 'we hate ouya it should die in a fire' we're saying it's not a feasible business plan, and it has an infeasible production schedule. at this point we're both just arguing with your stupidity and plain inability to discern logic and rationality from real life.

everyone who agreed with you has left the thread because you're making them look bad. dshu had plenty of fine points that while i was in disagreement with, i could at least respect. but even he's made reference to the fact that it's not foolproof/perfect/has flaws. as far as i can see damonz is gone because he probably realized that making up imaginary numbers and being like 'hmm this seems right' doesn't actually work in rational argument. and he at least stated that his feelings were opinions, which is all well and good. you just continue to say 'no it's going to work you guyz are teh dumbzors here's whie' while directly contradicting the few available pieces of hard evidence on the matter. just stop and be like 'well i hope it succeeds' and no one will have a problem with it.

edit: what he's saying with the mojang thing is ouya hasn't proven that people want the game on their system, and they CERTAINLY haven't proven they can make good hardware. there isn't even a completed controller yet. let's say all 63,000 people who supported ouya wanted minecraft. minecraft has a little under 40 million users. 136,619 of them registered yesterday. the number of people who support ouya is less than half the number of people who registered minecraft yesterday. mojang isn't going to go out of their way to rebuild minecraft and find a way to make it compatible with the current pc version for what is a sliver of the game's current population.

Edited by The Derrit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

everyone who agreed with you has left the thread because you're making them look bad. dshu had plenty of fine points that while i was in disagreement with, i could at least respect. but even he's made reference to the fact that it's not foolproof/perfect/has flaws. as far as i can see damonz is gone because he probably realized that making up imaginary numbers and being like 'hmm this seems right' doesn't actually work in rational argument. and he at least stated that his feelings were opinions, which is all well and good. you just continue to say 'no it's going to work you guyz are teh dumbzors here's whie' while directly contradicting the few available pieces of hard evidence on the matter. just stop and be like 'well i hope it succeeds' and no one will have a problem with it.

Ahem. Personally I decided to leave this stupid conversation because you're just dead certain the project is bound to failure even though everyone lacks tons of information to back what they're saying. Nobody in this thread can be 100% sure of the outcome of this project. You guys are stuck in an infinite loop of "dude I KNOW this won't work" and "dude I KNOW this can work". I'm really tired of this thread going nowhere interesting.

Btw, I used fictional numbers based on real data just to illustrate that a port can be easily a good time investment. Get over it. There's a big difference between using real numbers to build estimates and just saying "yeah this is what I think so it's right".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I left the argument because it became less about debating or talking about the system and instead devolved into juvenile internet "you're stupid! No u!" bull. Come on, guys. We're better than that.

Anyway I still stand by my statement about very small(currently) audience being a potential hindrance(which is is), and yeah, I don't really care much for indie games, but I'm all about like what you like and like liking it, so I hope the system works out. It isn't my ideal solution for the 1 box for EVERYTHING that I'm looking for, but here's to Ouya or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I left because I was in Missouri touring caves. :P

Something that just came to mind is that I've noticed a lot of games that have been updated to support Sony's Xperia Play, i.e. controller input. Many even support hacks like Wiimote and SixAxis. Users who actually use these devices are probably less than 1% of the Android ecosystem as a whole, yet devs are going ahead and adding support, in the hopes that it'll add that extra tiny bit to their sales or downloads. This leads me to believe that it's not as huge a deal as some are making it out to be.

Edited by Dhsu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. a cheap computer is a console whether you like it or not.

Nope. I've already said this (repeating myself): As a person who regularly uses his computer with a controller, I can safely say it is not a game console. Your average person doesn't have the patience to deal with the problems a computer has, nor the skill to build one. Your average games do not have good/any controller support. There is no way to do it on the cheap either.

2. i don't understand how dense you have to be to imply neblix was saying that steam sells hardware. steam doesn't *need* hardware. for someone who seems to want to make babies with the indie scene this should have been mind numbingly obvious.

Conversation was about marketing a console to both devs and gamers. So why Steam was mentioned at all is a mystery, as with why he feels its "impossible" since its done all the time, and they already have started (See Kickstarter, marketed the console to both devs and gamers. Not hard)

3. no. they should probably stick to doing that until they can afford to move up in the world. or just keep doing that. where is the issue there? is there some inferiority complex in the indie world about not being good enough to develop for a console?

I originally asked you if a console that was available was made that was affordable to develop for, why not? You have sidestepped this, and responded with another one of your insulting, shallow remarks about Indies. The whole point of Ouya is that it is an inexpensive way for Indies to get their game on a console.

4

Admittedly, that picture is a bit misleading. However, maybe I should quote the kickstarter?

Developers can offer a free demo with a full-game upgrade, in-game items or powers, or ask you to subscribe.

This sentence is RIGHT next to the other one. Convenient you left it out. "Free 2 Play" and Demo w/ full upgrade are completely different concepts. While these still may be "free to play" (this is where the image is slightly misleading) they aren't "Free 2 Play" models.

Either way, other people and I have pointed out the demo with full charge thing over and over and you seem to ignore it. If you are going to still say the Demo model isn't good for consumers and developers a like, I'd say id Software and even the entire industry (even XBLA/PSN) disagrees with you.

[EDIT to finish]

5. Its an Indie focused console. That is technically new. It is also bringing Free 2 Play (the model) to consoles. Again, new. Note: Wii's "custom chipsets" were redesigned GameCube parts. Either way, custom chipsets, even recycled ones, are more expensive than SoCs. Not something you do when you are offering a budget console AND a start up.

6. It makes it more fun that way, Sugar Pie Sweetiekins.

Also a computer isn't a console. You can just stop calling me ignorant because clearly, I'm not the one who is.

Oh and Great advice. That is the way things change. Not doing anything.

7. Uh we've been over the whole controller thing. Do we really have to go over it again? Are you really going to ignore everybody on that? Quoting some random guys opinion on PA doesn't make everybody elses examples go away. We've already gone over this multiple times on how projects can be ported over essentially for free. If you'd like me to repeat what me and others have said, I can do so. But yes, the ports of pre exsisting Android produts are essentially free. Clicking "Make Ouya Version" and changing a few scripts on Unity is also pretty "Free" when Unity gets the option.

8. You can continue to say pepole giving them money and them getting a console is not a sale, but that person still gave the same ammount of money a person buying the console would of if they never had a Kickstarter. Also, when the units ship, those people are still going to get a console, and still be counted as users, and will (hopefully at least) buy products for it.

mojang isn't going to go out of their way to rebuild minecraft and find a way to make it compatible with the current pc version for what is a sliver of the game's current population.

I was under the impression they were just porting the already exsisting Android version over. Do you have some new information that hasn't been announced yet? Otherwise, again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Edited by Crowbar Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the practicality and price reasons I already mentioned, another reason it's silly to say that the Ouya offers nothing over a cheap computer is that the same could be said for ANY console. Why do people buy consoles at all when a $100 processor and $50 graphics card lets you play Assassin's Creed, Darksiders, Skyrim, Gears of War, etc. on your computer, and a computer does so much more on top of that?

And honestly even that's moot. Again, why does the PS3 even exist? What does it offer over the Xbox 360?

Edited by Dhsu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. a cheap computer is a console whether you like it or not.

This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. The reason video game systems are called consoles rather than computers is that they are an all-included package that works seamlessly with a television to play games.

Computers require a special monitor to operate (even though HDMI has made it much easier for computers to hook into TVs, it is far from standard on all machines).

Computers and computer games evolve over time, meaning many games require up-to-date software and hardware to accomodate them.

Computers use a large percentage of their memory and processing power to run a multi-task operating system. (When I say multi-task, I'm referring to the fact that they can run several high-end programs at once).

Consoles work seamlessly with technology that people already own.

Consoles almost never change, so games are required to work with the same hardware no matter what.

Consoles use single-task operating systems that allow more processing power and memory to be used to run software. (Don't let stuff like background downloads and an in-game music player fool you, game consoles use significantly less memory and processing power for their OS and are not designed to do multiple high-end tasks.)

To say consoles are just cheap computers is to not understand what a console is at all.

To further the point, my Xbox 360 from 2005 runs Skyrim, Portal 2, and Borderlands with no problem. My laptop from 2009 required a RAM upgrade and a new operating system to run those same games. This is why consoles are very different from computers.

Edited by Cerrax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, as if the 360 doesn't routinely shit on its fanbase.

And it makes you pay to go online. Brilliant cash cow for MS.

That money goes to the phenomenal uptime and security that the XBL service has. Granted there has been extended outages, the longest lasting for a paltry 13 days (nothing compared to the outage that shut down all of Sony's online services), but still, you get what you pay for in my opinion. XBL is more polished than the free PS3 service. When the 360s were red ringing, they offered a 100% replacement. The Yellow light on the other hand was not offered and instead loyal Sony customers were forced to have a 200 refurb, for the exact same thing that 360 owners had.

But this has nothing to do with the forthcoming failure of the Ouya, which will be muscled and bullied out of the console race by the bigger kids on the block.

Also, just buy a goddamn computer and install Steam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the 360s were red ringing, they offered a 100% replacement.

I think the larger issue is that Microsoft, with the initial batch of 360s, knowingly shipped out a faulty and defective product.

When you have to replace your console fucking twice, you should know that something is up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the larger issue is that Microsoft, with the initial batch of 360s, knowingly shipped out a faulty and defective product.

When you have to replace your console fucking twice, you should know that something is up.

I'm wary of all huge Triple A companies these days. But imo, Microsoft is definitely the biggest A-hole of the industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lots of stuff

i would have agreed with you 5 or 10 years ago but seeing as my out of the box laptop from 4 years ago can still play current games without a hitch (given at low settings) clearly the hardware gap is not so volatile that it's a limiting factor, outside of crysis. given an average laptop's lifetime is around 4 years i really don't see why anyone would make a distinction. everything about what they do is the same, and the only point that really makes a difference in everything you put down was the 'special monitor' but really since there has been hdmi input, there has been the ability to hook your computer into a tv. the only computer that doesn't come with hdmi input is certain types of apple laptops and people buying those certain types of apple laptops aren't really thinking about anything but how cool apple is.

if you had to do something distinctly different to play games on a computer you might have a point. but you really don't at all. function is exactly the same. yes every so often you have to update your computer, but in general people replace laptops in 5 years, and desktops in 6 or 7 anyways.

though overall out of all the points this one is probably the least important, given the only reason it got brought up in the first place is that indie developers 'deserve to develop for a console' as if putting out games on pc isn't good enough. which is a silly notion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

though overall out of all the points this one is probably the least important, given the only reason it got brought up in the first place is that indie developers 'deserve to develop for a console' as if putting out games on pc isn't good enough. which is a silly notion.

It's not that it's not good enough. A console is a console because it does only one thing: play video games with a specific controller. Consequently, developing for computers is a very different task, because you have to create a game with flexible hardware, and most importantly flexible sources of input. If the main input is supposed to be a mouse and a keyboard, then some types of games are at a big disadvantage, because they are great to play with a controller, and awkward with mouse+keyboard. The problem, in this case, is that a computer game HAS to be functional with mouse+keyboard, and MAY be playable with a controller. I think denying this would be frankly stupid.

On a console, your game can only possibly be played with a specific source of input (which is the console's controller) and the general specs of the hardware are not flexible (which is the case for a console). The games you make don't have to adapt to the hardware's capacity (which I think is just convenient for optimizing the game), neither do they have to adapt to the source of input. It's a controller, and that's it. I think that's the main reason some games are meant to be played on a console and some are meant to be played on a computer.

I don't think it's a matter of "my computer can do just fine as a console, just plug it in the TV and get a controller". Devs can't make a computer game and say "this game is meant to be played like a console game, so you have to get a controller to play it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...