What Ouya Isn't • Hacker News Board

Re: What Ouya Isn't

#31

Post by eropple » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 5:57 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #14

> Ouya is a lot of promises and fluffy ideals in an industry that doesn't give two shits about them. An open machine plugged into my TV sounds cool, but what would I use it for that one of the myriad non-open options doesn't already do? Not very friendly sounding, but this last paragraph is the very crux of the matter. If it's as open as we hope it will be, then there could be a huge number of things that it does tha…

A great deal of that "number of things" are something that most game developers don't want their consumers to be able to do on the same hardware as their games. And I can't really blame them for it.

(Seriously, the intensity with which they're pushing the "you can hack this!" angle is bothersome from the perspective of somebody who has considered, though now rejected, supporting this thing for a current title.)

Re: What Ouya Isn't

#32

Post by ringmaster » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 6:19 AM UTC

The one thing the author fails to address is what is actually revolutionary about the OUYA: It is a TV-based console without a developer licensing fee.

This is revolutionary because on any other platform, the developer produces the software and the distributor takes a cut of the earnings, and the console manufacturer takes a cut of the earnings. (Remember all that "loss leader" talk when new consoles come out and are cheaper than what it costs to manufacture them? This is why.) By the time everyone gets their slice, you have a pit of dedicated game developers making $15k a year that have put up with distributors telling them what kind of game to make, who then ultimately get fired when they've done their job as commanded. Seems like a career you'd need to love to stick with it.

Even if the numbers don't work out in the end - if OUYA's cut is just as big as the big guys, if the CPU doesn't cut the mustard, if developers can't sell big enough numbers to stay afloat, etc. - it still seems like a worthy enough idea to back it if you're a gamer and want to see what developers could do, free of the shackles of conventional distribution. I can also completely understand people being relentless about personally promoting the console if having more gamers is actually what it needs to get the game developers to break even developing for it.

Re: What Ouya Isn't

#33

Post by timee » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 7:12 AM UTC

pacmon wrote: post #22

SCdF wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I considered leaving that example out ;-) So FPS games have changed dramatically to work on consoles. They are often third person, and it gives you a better sense of space on a display so far away. They have become 'slower' and the fighting has become mostly horizontal and far less vertical, because controllers just aren't as good as a mouse in terms of aiming. The games tend to have lots of 'shooting' gallery…

It's clear you haven't played FPS on console in years. Neither had I. I've always been a person who believed a PC was a must for FPS. Then my friend decided he was going to get Battlefield 3 on 360 not PC, so I did the same(with great hesitation about how I would do). It turns out - it's not so bad. I crank the rotation sensitivity way up, turn off auto-aim (frankly, it makes things worse) and I do well enough. I wil…

It's fairly clear when games are designed for console first or for PC first. For example, Battlefield 3 on the console didn't have some of the fundamentals of a AAA first person shooter title, such as making sure it runs at 60 frames a second. Details like those were reflected in their Metacritic score, where the PC version stood significantly above its console counterparts.

Ironically, Battlefield 3 has sold roughly 2M PC copies, 6M Xbox copies, and 5M PS3 copies. [1,2,3] It was numbers like these that caused most of the game franchises to switch to console if they weren't already focused on them. A lot started out being PC-focused such as Ghost Recon, Call of Duty, Splinter Cell and The Elder Scrolls come to mind, but all of their latest franchise titles are heavily designed as console games first.

I would argue that first person shooters are a dying genre on PCs through just looking from the competitive scene with gaming. While there is still may be a lasting Counter Strike scene, the focus has gone to the latest Halo or Call of Duty being played on a console for competitive FPSs.

It just happens to be that some game genres really don't work well on the console no matter how hard you try. Halo Wars was well done as a console designed RTS, but just doesn't have the same depth as its PC counterparts such as Starcraft or Warcraft due to the restrictions on the interface and controls.

Even if you do manage to design for the platform, a lot of games just don't work.

[1] http://www.vgchartz.com/game/35315/battlefield-3/ [2] http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40231/battlefield-3/ [3] http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40230/battlefield-3/

Re: What Ouya Isn't

#34

Post by learc83 » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 7:26 AM UTC

malkia wrote: post #27

Zuph wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a device without AAA games necessarily a device that isn't primarily about games? I'm genuinely curious about this. From my perspective, the Ouya seems to perfectly match my gaming habits (I have not played a "AAA" title in many years), so I have to wonder what about the economics of the situation make the Ouya fundamentally untenable.

Because it would not catch mainstream people. No "cool" kid in the school would play unpopular games. And most popular games are AAA, yes there are quite a few indie gems - minecraft, angry birds, plants & zombies - but only few of them can keep them attached for many sequels. Where Mario, Donkey Kong, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo, and many others are games where kids expect them and know about them.…

I don't really think it's going to compete with the big three in terms of total sales.

If it succeeds it's probably going to be as an addition to the current consoles. If it costs $99, bucks why not buy one?

Re: What Ouya Isn't

#35

Post by liquid_x » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 7:45 AM UTC

chucknelson wrote: post #16

SCdF wrote: post #13

Initially I was excited for Ouya. Not because I was ever going to own one (console/tv gaming sucks for my lifestyle) but because it would mean there would be better games on Android. Except now I'm not so sure. Making a game work on a touchscreen 30cm from your face is a completely different proposition from making a game on a controller 4m in front of your face. It's nice that the underlying OS is the same, but it's…

"And FPS works well on neither (go go mouse + keyboard)." Crazy sales and millions of console FPS players would disagree. I think playing an FPS on a controller is "normal" and just fine as of the current generation of consoles. Of course there will be edge cases, too (quake 3, CS, etc.).

Ah, but there you see, for fps with a controller to work you need a lot of assisted aiming and a slower pace.

Microsoft tried cross platform halo but it didn't work that well: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/rumor_microsoft_killed...

Re: What Ouya Isn't

#36

Post by mtgx » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 8:17 AM UTC

"Games aren't thriving on Android"

Is that it? Not even a single example to back it up? Sounds like someone who doesn't even own an Android device.

Re: What Ouya Isn't

#37

Post by ZoFreX » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 8:20 AM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #36

"Games aren't thriving on Android" Is that it? Not even a single example to back it up? Sounds like someone who doesn't even own an Android device.

I wouldn't describe it as thriving, however...

> First, there isn't a thriving Android game market, currently. That can change and I'm not going to offer a prediction, but for now it doesn't exist. Moving on.

"It doesn't exist" really does make the author sound like they haven't used an Android device in the last 3 years.

Re: What Ouya Isn't

#38

Post by mtgx » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 8:22 AM UTC

kevingadd wrote: post #19

I like the post overall, but the tech analysis is really weak. It makes it look like you spent a few minutes reading specs on wikipedia and decided that was enough to compare and contrast the hardware. It's not, and that comparison doesn't really add anything to the post. To properly compare the processors you need to note that they are using different instruction sets and that the 360's processors are in-order with…

Out of order, 1 MB of cache. I'm not too familiar with the GPU. Xbox360 most likely has higher performance, and this is why I was hoping they'd use as "beefed up" (no regard for power consumption) Tegra 4 instead of a beefed up Tegra 3.

Not sure what DirectX version Xbox is using but I know PS3 graphics are usually considered higher quality, and they're only using a slightly modified version of OpenGL ES 2.0, which is what Tegra 3 supports, too. Tegra 4 will support GLES 3.0, and they might surprise us with support for the full OpenGL 4.3, too, especially if built with Kepler DNA, but I'd say the chances are less than 50% for that.

But anyway, I think the comparisons with Xbox are rather pointless and people who do it "don't get it". Does the Wii really need to be compared with Xbox in performance? It seems millions of people bought it anyway.

Re: What Ouya Isn't

#39

Post by ZoFreX » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 8:22 AM UTC

> The current published sales record for XBLA was, oddly enough, Minecraft, which sold over a million units in a week. If I'm an indie looking to make money with a good game, that blows any Ouya potential out of the water.

You can't pick the biggest success for XBLA and use that as the only comparison point. Yes, Ouya won't be your console of choice if you are a AAA developer, or an indie developer with the kind of clout that notch has. But if you are an actually small-time dev, it'll be a lot easier to get onto Ouya and make a modest amount of money than it would be to get onto XBLA.

Re: What Ouya Isn't

#40

Post by mtgx » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 8:27 AM UTC

malkia wrote: post #6

On one side I want it to succeed (the liberal hobbyist in me), on the other side I see some problems (the conservative console game developer in me) I don't see how AAA title would be delivered to this device. And without AAA titles, the device can't be primarily about games. What used to fit in CD-ROM in PSX days, then on DVD in PS2/Xbox, now it needs bigger and more storage. With the recent download limits from int…

AAA titles? This device is about "disruption". By default that means it won't get the very best games out there, but that's irrelevant. Did iOS have AAA title games in the first few years? Can you even say it does now? And does it matter that it doesn't? Because I don't see it.